LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
If you think it should be free then you have to answer the obvious electoral suicide question of why we all pay say an extra 5 percent tax whilst we protect those with the greatest means to pay assets. This is the essentially unsolvable problem. How many cases of truly free care whilst the recipient of that care gets 30-40k in final salary pension and there house is untouched do you think it takes to make a mockery of this approach. If the hotel costs of the care home should also be covered because if not they will likely be selling the house to pay for these as well as the personal care element is only part of the problem.pangolin said:
So one should be free at point of use whilst the other should be means tested... because they are in different buildings?john80 said:
What I am trying to convey to you is think of what the doctor's surgery or local hospital treats you for and are setup for. They use scale and efficiency to deliver those services. Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die. Should you do that for free where your house and all your assets sit idle to be passed on through inheritance or should those resources pay for your care. Remember the time when people mainly died before getting these diseases and family were meant to care for their own. We have essentially sub contracted out these care roles for many reasons and we seem to be getting fed the line that this care should be covered as a free at source.Pross said:
You genuinely don't see dementia as an illness? Have you ever had a family member suffer with it? Whilst it is more common in over 65s you can get it far earlier in life too.john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
So my question to you would be if it is a free at source disease then you presumably would be happy with a trust setting up a specialist care home. They would be massive for scale and basic for minimum cost as under NICE guidelines we have to maximise tax payer benefit. You would be treated as you would at any hospital where the food would not be free, visitors would get charged by the hospital and if you don't feed your relatives they die after a while. This is a pretty standard hospital setup. Be careful what you wish for.
You want choice you need to pay for it as my family have done so in the past.
I have accepted that my parents assets will fund their care as it is their money and their life. After it is gone the state picks up the tab and they will have less service provider choice. Personally I find the whole conversation reeks of money grabbing offspring.0 -
I am not disputing it is a professional job. What I am disputing is that there is a solution that protects those individuals assets that is acceptable to the public and therefore can be financed. The public has just about swallowed a 1.25% tax increase and this is probably their limit. The idea that as something is a disease means that it is free to care for is not the way the NHS works for a lot of other conditions. When you get terminal cancer and have a year to live what does the NHS, benefits and you cover.pblakeney said:
You have clearly not had to care for someone with Alzheimers or Dementia otherwise you would know it is not something that a member of the general public can cope with. There is a reason they end up in care and it is not convenience.john80 said:Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die.
Any further input from yourself on the subject is invalidated by lack of experience and knowledge.0 -
The cap is £86k that would take somebody on average earnings 300 years to pay.john80 said:
If you think it should be free then you have to answer the obvious electoral suicide question of why we all pay say an extra 5 percent tax whilst we protect those with the greatest means to pay assets. This is the essentially unsolvable problem. How many cases of truly free care whilst the recipient of that care gets 30-40k in final salary pension and there house is untouched do you think it takes to make a mockery of this approach. If the hotel costs of the care home should also be covered because if not they will likely be selling the house to pay for these as well as the personal care element is only part of the problem.pangolin said:
So one should be free at point of use whilst the other should be means tested... because they are in different buildings?john80 said:
What I am trying to convey to you is think of what the doctor's surgery or local hospital treats you for and are setup for. They use scale and efficiency to deliver those services. Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die. Should you do that for free where your house and all your assets sit idle to be passed on through inheritance or should those resources pay for your care. Remember the time when people mainly died before getting these diseases and family were meant to care for their own. We have essentially sub contracted out these care roles for many reasons and we seem to be getting fed the line that this care should be covered as a free at source.Pross said:
You genuinely don't see dementia as an illness? Have you ever had a family member suffer with it? Whilst it is more common in over 65s you can get it far earlier in life too.john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
So my question to you would be if it is a free at source disease then you presumably would be happy with a trust setting up a specialist care home. They would be massive for scale and basic for minimum cost as under NICE guidelines we have to maximise tax payer benefit. You would be treated as you would at any hospital where the food would not be free, visitors would get charged by the hospital and if you don't feed your relatives they die after a while. This is a pretty standard hospital setup. Be careful what you wish for.
You want choice you need to pay for it as my family have done so in the past.
I have accepted that my parents assets will fund their care as it is their money and their life. After it is gone the state picks up the tab and they will have less service provider choice. Personally I find the whole conversation reeks of money grabbing offspring.
For many people £86k is a lifetime’s NI payments.0 -
FTFYrjsterry said:
Yep. He really can't do thinkingkingstongraham said:I'm sure I heard him say that Labour had ignored social care "for decades" while in power.
on his feet.
I think his efforts go into sounding clever, hence the use of Latin.
0 -
The main issue with people quoting maritime law is that maritime law is written on the pretext that your voyage and vessel was not deliberately unsafe before you started. This is then further enhanced by checks at port and qualification. The average migrant in a inflatable boat is merely seeking to get afloat and far enough out for border force or the RNLI to rescue them. This is ironic as if you sail in France they are quite officious with their skills and qualification requirements yet happily turn a blind eye in this instance. Many can't even swim ffs.elbowloh said:Is this even legal? Imagine this will just trigger the migrants to put a hole in the boat when they see border force approaching.
Channel crossings: Priti Patel authorises turning back of migrant boats
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58495948
So yes they will try to end up in the water and hence require rescue. Some will die doing so and this will likely be filmed by a boat shadowing them for liberals to get upset about. Frances position that boats can't be turned around at sea is not valid or a correct interpretation of maritime law.0 -
The breadth of your areas of expertise constantly surprise me.john80 said:
The main issue with people quoting maritime law is that maritime law is written on the pretext that your voyage and vessel was not deliberately unsafe before you started. This is then further enhanced by checks at port and qualification. The average migrant in a inflatable boat is merely seeking to get afloat and far enough out for border force or the RNLI to rescue them. This is ironic as if you sail in France they are quite officious with their skills and qualification requirements yet happily turn a blind eye in this instance. Many can't even swim ffs.elbowloh said:Is this even legal? Imagine this will just trigger the migrants to put a hole in the boat when they see border force approaching.
Channel crossings: Priti Patel authorises turning back of migrant boats
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58495948
So yes they will try to end up in the water and hence require rescue. Some will die doing so and this will likely be filmed by a boat shadowing them for liberals to get upset about. Frances position that boats can't be turned around at sea is not valid or a correct interpretation of maritime law.0 -
FTFYjohn80 said:
The main issue with people quoting maritime law is that maritime law is written on the pretext that your voyage and vessel was not deliberately unsafe before you started. This is then further enhanced by checks at port and qualification. The average migrant in a inflatable boat is merely seeking to get afloat and far enough out for border force or the RNLI to rescue them. This is ironic as if you sail in France they are quite officious with their skills and qualification requirements yet happily turn a blind eye in this instance. Many can't even swim ffs.elbowloh said:Is this even legal? Imagine this will just trigger the migrants to put a hole in the boat when they see border force approaching.
Channel crossings: Priti Patel authorises turning back of migrant boats
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58495948
So yes they will try to end up in the water and hence require rescue. Some will die doing so and this will likely be filmed by a boat shadowing them for non-psychopaths to get upset about. Frances position that boats can't be turned around at sea is not valid or a correct interpretation of maritime law.0 -
It's not really about 'protecting assets'.john80 said:
I am not disputing it is a professional job. What I am disputing is that there is a solution that protects those individuals assets that is acceptable to the public and therefore can be financed. The public has just about swallowed a 1.25% tax increase and this is probably their limit. The idea that as something is a disease means that it is free to care for is not the way the NHS works for a lot of other conditions. When you get terminal cancer and have a year to live what does the NHS, benefits and you cover.pblakeney said:
You have clearly not had to care for someone with Alzheimers or Dementia otherwise you would know it is not something that a member of the general public can cope with. There is a reason they end up in care and it is not convenience.john80 said:Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die.
Any further input from yourself on the subject is invalidated by lack of experience and knowledge.
You are not really understanding the issue.
It basically boils down to fairness. It should not be down to pot luck whether the illness you get should be paid for or not.
I have long advocated for a carefully implemented private healthcare system, so it is not about not wanting to not pay for anything.
The costs for a lot of illnesses are vast. I don't begrudge anyone any free treatment. That's how it's run. I know plenty of people who have had life-long care for their illnesses which must be a vast cost. That's absolutely fine. Appropriate even.
I just don't see that you have to have an exception for dementia because rather than being born with it you develop it in old age and rather than it being visible it's mental.
I think everyone recognises that it needs to be paid somehow. The question is how to do that in a fair and appropriate way.
0 -
Are there any other long term illnesses you think we should pay for ourselves? I know people who have had treatment for years for cancer before it finally kills them, what about things like emphysema that may require treatment for decades. I'm really struggling to understand why you have chosen one particular disease as something that shouldn't be treated free by the NHS - what about things like MND, Parkinsons or life-long conditions such as severe autism?john80 said:
What I am trying to convey to you is think of what the doctor's surgery or local hospital treats you for and are setup for. They use scale and efficiency to deliver those services. Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die. Should you do that for free where your house and all your assets sit idle to be passed on through inheritance or should those resources pay for your care. Remember the time when people mainly died before getting these diseases and family were meant to care for their own. We have essentially sub contracted out these care roles for many reasons and we seem to be getting fed the line that this care should be covered as a free at source.Pross said:
You genuinely don't see dementia as an illness? Have you ever had a family member suffer with it? Whilst it is more common in over 65s you can get it far earlier in life too.john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
So my question to you would be if it is a free at source disease then you presumably would be happy with a trust setting up a specialist care home. They would be massive for scale and basic for minimum cost as under NICE guidelines we have to maximise tax payer benefit. You would be treated as you would at any hospital where the food would not be free, visitors would get charged by the hospital and if you don't feed your relatives they die after a while. This is a pretty standard hospital setup. Be careful what you wish for.
You want choice you need to pay for it as my family have done so in the past.0 -
or MS?Pross said:
Are there any other long term illnesses you think we should pay for ourselves? I know people who have had treatment for years for cancer before it finally kills them, what about things like emphysema that may require treatment for decades. I'm really struggling to understand why you have chosen one particular disease as something that shouldn't be treated free by the NHS - what about things like MND, Parkinsons or life-long conditions such as severe autism?john80 said:
What I am trying to convey to you is think of what the doctor's surgery or local hospital treats you for and are setup for. They use scale and efficiency to deliver those services. Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die. Should you do that for free where your house and all your assets sit idle to be passed on through inheritance or should those resources pay for your care. Remember the time when people mainly died before getting these diseases and family were meant to care for their own. We have essentially sub contracted out these care roles for many reasons and we seem to be getting fed the line that this care should be covered as a free at source.Pross said:
You genuinely don't see dementia as an illness? Have you ever had a family member suffer with it? Whilst it is more common in over 65s you can get it far earlier in life too.john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
So my question to you would be if it is a free at source disease then you presumably would be happy with a trust setting up a specialist care home. They would be massive for scale and basic for minimum cost as under NICE guidelines we have to maximise tax payer benefit. You would be treated as you would at any hospital where the food would not be free, visitors would get charged by the hospital and if you don't feed your relatives they die after a while. This is a pretty standard hospital setup. Be careful what you wish for.
You want choice you need to pay for it as my family have done so in the past.0 -
I think you need to have a think about how things like Parkinsons etc are funded. For sure the medical treatment will be free but the living costs are not free if you can't work. You then enter the benefits system and this is means tested much like social care for the elderly. So by all means if you and many other posters think that Alzheimers or Dementia get special treatment or should get special treatment then I don't see your logic. You can be a 40 year old who gets Parkinsons but if you own a house you most likely won't own much of it after a couple of decades once the benefits system takes its cut. This is before you get to the nursing home.Pross said:
Are there any other long term illnesses you think we should pay for ourselves? I know people who have had treatment for years for cancer before it finally kills them, what about things like emphysema that may require treatment for decades. I'm really struggling to understand why you have chosen one particular disease as something that shouldn't be treated free by the NHS - what about things like MND, Parkinsons or life-long conditions such as severe autism?john80 said:
What I am trying to convey to you is think of what the doctor's surgery or local hospital treats you for and are setup for. They use scale and efficiency to deliver those services. Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die. Should you do that for free where your house and all your assets sit idle to be passed on through inheritance or should those resources pay for your care. Remember the time when people mainly died before getting these diseases and family were meant to care for their own. We have essentially sub contracted out these care roles for many reasons and we seem to be getting fed the line that this care should be covered as a free at source.Pross said:
You genuinely don't see dementia as an illness? Have you ever had a family member suffer with it? Whilst it is more common in over 65s you can get it far earlier in life too.john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
So my question to you would be if it is a free at source disease then you presumably would be happy with a trust setting up a specialist care home. They would be massive for scale and basic for minimum cost as under NICE guidelines we have to maximise tax payer benefit. You would be treated as you would at any hospital where the food would not be free, visitors would get charged by the hospital and if you don't feed your relatives they die after a while. This is a pretty standard hospital setup. Be careful what you wish for.
You want choice you need to pay for it as my family have done so in the past.0 -
The increase in real house values over the past 50 years is a pure unearned income. The current system taxes that in a "pot luck" way.rick_chasey said:
It's not really about 'protecting assets'.john80 said:
I am not disputing it is a professional job. What I am disputing is that there is a solution that protects those individuals assets that is acceptable to the public and therefore can be financed. The public has just about swallowed a 1.25% tax increase and this is probably their limit. The idea that as something is a disease means that it is free to care for is not the way the NHS works for a lot of other conditions. When you get terminal cancer and have a year to live what does the NHS, benefits and you cover.pblakeney said:
You have clearly not had to care for someone with Alzheimers or Dementia otherwise you would know it is not something that a member of the general public can cope with. There is a reason they end up in care and it is not convenience.john80 said:Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die.
Any further input from yourself on the subject is invalidated by lack of experience and knowledge.
You are not really understanding the issue.
It basically boils down to fairness. It should not be down to pot luck whether the illness you get should be paid for or not.
I have long advocated for a carefully implemented private healthcare system, so it is not about not wanting to not pay for anything.
The costs for a lot of illnesses are vast. I don't begrudge anyone any free treatment. That's how it's run. I know plenty of people who have had life-long care for their illnesses which must be a vast cost. That's absolutely fine. Appropriate even.
I just don't see that you have to have an exception for dementia because rather than being born with it you develop it in old age and rather than it being visible it's mental.
I think everyone recognises that it needs to be paid somehow. The question is how to do that in a fair and appropriate way.0 -
kingstongraham said:
The increase in real house values over the past 50 years is a pure unearned income. The current system taxes that in a "pot luck" way.rick_chasey said:
It's not really about 'protecting assets'.john80 said:
I am not disputing it is a professional job. What I am disputing is that there is a solution that protects those individuals assets that is acceptable to the public and therefore can be financed. The public has just about swallowed a 1.25% tax increase and this is probably their limit. The idea that as something is a disease means that it is free to care for is not the way the NHS works for a lot of other conditions. When you get terminal cancer and have a year to live what does the NHS, benefits and you cover.pblakeney said:
You have clearly not had to care for someone with Alzheimers or Dementia otherwise you would know it is not something that a member of the general public can cope with. There is a reason they end up in care and it is not convenience.john80 said:Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die.
Any further input from yourself on the subject is invalidated by lack of experience and knowledge.
You are not really understanding the issue.
It basically boils down to fairness. It should not be down to pot luck whether the illness you get should be paid for or not.
I have long advocated for a carefully implemented private healthcare system, so it is not about not wanting to not pay for anything.
The costs for a lot of illnesses are vast. I don't begrudge anyone any free treatment. That's how it's run. I know plenty of people who have had life-long care for their illnesses which must be a vast cost. That's absolutely fine. Appropriate even.
I just don't see that you have to have an exception for dementia because rather than being born with it you develop it in old age and rather than it being visible it's mental.
I think everyone recognises that it needs to be paid somehow. The question is how to do that in a fair and appropriate way.
1) there is an argument that returns on investment aren't really 'unearned' income as you are risking your capital for said investment. I think that's a reasonable argument, unless you feel the same about all investing, but then you will struggle to get an an economy moving.
2) I totally take that a means tested solution is likely to be fair, though again, I would suggest that you should then means test for all illnesses, rather than just the ones that require involved professional care in later life.0 -
You are conveniently forgetting that nobody is getting rich on disability benefits and building up property portfolios for these other long term illnesses. It is all means tested. When your kid gets cancer. You take then to the hospital, feed and cloth them and if you are lucky you might get some respite care from a charity and Ronald McDonalds might put you up for a few nights. When you get Cancer you get minimal benefits and if you own a house any money you get for the housing aspect will be a loan against the property called support for mortgage interest. The medical care aspects are free however all the other support is generally not. The idea that old people are getting screwed over as they assets are being used for their care is not correct. In my view it is fair that those with assets pay for their care until they cannot.rick_chasey said:
It's not really about 'protecting assets'.john80 said:
I am not disputing it is a professional job. What I am disputing is that there is a solution that protects those individuals assets that is acceptable to the public and therefore can be financed. The public has just about swallowed a 1.25% tax increase and this is probably their limit. The idea that as something is a disease means that it is free to care for is not the way the NHS works for a lot of other conditions. When you get terminal cancer and have a year to live what does the NHS, benefits and you cover.pblakeney said:
You have clearly not had to care for someone with Alzheimers or Dementia otherwise you would know it is not something that a member of the general public can cope with. There is a reason they end up in care and it is not convenience.john80 said:Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die.
Any further input from yourself on the subject is invalidated by lack of experience and knowledge.
You are not really understanding the issue.
It basically boils down to fairness. It should not be down to pot luck whether the illness you get should be paid for or not.
I have long advocated for a carefully implemented private healthcare system, so it is not about not wanting to not pay for anything.
The costs for a lot of illnesses are vast. I don't begrudge anyone any free treatment. That's how it's run. I know plenty of people who have had life-long care for their illnesses which must be a vast cost. That's absolutely fine. Appropriate even.
I just don't see that you have to have an exception for dementia because rather than being born with it you develop it in old age and rather than it being visible it's mental.
I think everyone recognises that it needs to be paid somehow. The question is how to do that in a fair and appropriate way.
The better change to social care would have been the state stepping in and maybe running a model where they build the care homes and manage the building and the care within is then ran by private companies essentially as a management contract and we try to do things on a bigger scale to bring the costs down.0 -
John not understanding illnesses and the care required aside, it is quite the tax hike. I am disappointed @Stevo_666 isn't whining about how bad it is for everyone.0
-
Owning your home is not, and never should be seen as an investment. It is putting a roof over your head.rick_chasey said:kingstongraham said:
The increase in real house values over the past 50 years is a pure unearned income. The current system taxes that in a "pot luck" way.rick_chasey said:
It's not really about 'protecting assets'.john80 said:
I am not disputing it is a professional job. What I am disputing is that there is a solution that protects those individuals assets that is acceptable to the public and therefore can be financed. The public has just about swallowed a 1.25% tax increase and this is probably their limit. The idea that as something is a disease means that it is free to care for is not the way the NHS works for a lot of other conditions. When you get terminal cancer and have a year to live what does the NHS, benefits and you cover.pblakeney said:
You have clearly not had to care for someone with Alzheimers or Dementia otherwise you would know it is not something that a member of the general public can cope with. There is a reason they end up in care and it is not convenience.john80 said:Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die.
Any further input from yourself on the subject is invalidated by lack of experience and knowledge.
You are not really understanding the issue.
It basically boils down to fairness. It should not be down to pot luck whether the illness you get should be paid for or not.
I have long advocated for a carefully implemented private healthcare system, so it is not about not wanting to not pay for anything.
The costs for a lot of illnesses are vast. I don't begrudge anyone any free treatment. That's how it's run. I know plenty of people who have had life-long care for their illnesses which must be a vast cost. That's absolutely fine. Appropriate even.
I just don't see that you have to have an exception for dementia because rather than being born with it you develop it in old age and rather than it being visible it's mental.
I think everyone recognises that it needs to be paid somehow. The question is how to do that in a fair and appropriate way.
1) there is an argument that returns on investment aren't really 'unearned' income as you are risking your capital for said investment. I think that's a reasonable argument, unless you feel the same about all investing, but then you will struggle to get an an economy moving.
2) I totally take that a means tested solution is likely to be fair, though again, I would suggest that you should then means test for all illnesses, rather than just the ones that require involved professional care in later life.
Investing is all about accepting risk to your capital. It is why putting money in a bank account is not investing, or buying Premium Bonds is not investing.
Funding of care certainly should be means tested. The nursing / medical care element should be paid for by the State, but the hotel cost side should be means tested, and the cap of £86,000 is ridiculously low - it's not even 3 year's worth of residential home fees, and is only about 1/3rd of the average UK house price.
0 -
It depends on a CHC assessment, if the needs are primarily health related you don't have to self-fund and there is no means testing.john80 said:
I think you need to have a think about how things like Parkinsons etc are funded. For sure the medical treatment will be free but the living costs are not free if you can't work. You then enter the benefits system and this is means tested much like social care for the elderly. So by all means if you and many other posters think that Alzheimers or Dementia get special treatment or should get special treatment then I don't see your logic. You can be a 40 year old who gets Parkinsons but if you own a house you most likely won't own much of it after a couple of decades once the benefits system takes its cut. This is before you get to the nursing home.Pross said:
Are there any other long term illnesses you think we should pay for ourselves? I know people who have had treatment for years for cancer before it finally kills them, what about things like emphysema that may require treatment for decades. I'm really struggling to understand why you have chosen one particular disease as something that shouldn't be treated free by the NHS - what about things like MND, Parkinsons or life-long conditions such as severe autism?john80 said:
What I am trying to convey to you is think of what the doctor's surgery or local hospital treats you for and are setup for. They use scale and efficiency to deliver those services. Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die. Should you do that for free where your house and all your assets sit idle to be passed on through inheritance or should those resources pay for your care. Remember the time when people mainly died before getting these diseases and family were meant to care for their own. We have essentially sub contracted out these care roles for many reasons and we seem to be getting fed the line that this care should be covered as a free at source.Pross said:
You genuinely don't see dementia as an illness? Have you ever had a family member suffer with it? Whilst it is more common in over 65s you can get it far earlier in life too.john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
So my question to you would be if it is a free at source disease then you presumably would be happy with a trust setting up a specialist care home. They would be massive for scale and basic for minimum cost as under NICE guidelines we have to maximise tax payer benefit. You would be treated as you would at any hospital where the food would not be free, visitors would get charged by the hospital and if you don't feed your relatives they die after a while. This is a pretty standard hospital setup. Be careful what you wish for.
You want choice you need to pay for it as my family have done so in the past.
Your argument seems to be that because these illnesses may currently require people to sell their houses to pay for care at present then that should continue to be the case. You singled out dementia as a long-term issue that shouldn't come under free care (seemingly as it's just some old people who their relatives can't be bothered to care for) so I was pointing out other examples of long-term issues that can affect people of all ages (ass indeed can dementia). I haven't seen anyone suggesting dementia getting special treatment, they have been saying the exact opposite and that it should be treated the same as other illnesses. The new rules will hopefully go some way towards rectifying this discrepancy although there will still be an amount of assets above which the person will have to self-fund. I could maybe understand your point if it is just a case of people chucking their parents in an old folks home because they've started to need a bit of assistance and it is too much hassle but that isn't what dementia is.
0 -
Owning a home is an investment, whether you want to treat it like one or not.
Given the vast majority of people buy a house with a mortgage, it is even worse, it's a leveraged investment!! Anyone who buys a home with a mortgage is running a risk (however small) that the investment will cost you multiplies of the money you put into it.
I would suggest Dorset that it is vitally important people realise that owning a home is indeed an investment, so they understand the implications of price movements in the sector, as it is almost always the most expensive thing anyone ever does and it's critical to living a safe life.
Buying premium bonds is a type of investing. It's just incredibly low risk.
0 -
Sorry Rick, it really isn't.rick_chasey said:Owning a home is an investment, whether you want to treat it like one or not.
Given the vast majority of people buy a house with a mortgage, it is even worse, it's a leveraged investment!! Anyone who buys a home with a mortgage is running a risk (however small) that the investment will cost you multiplies of the money you put into it.
I would suggest Dorset that it is vitally important people realise that owning a home is indeed an investment, so they understand the implications of price movements in the sector.
0 -
I could be wrong here but I'm sure I heard yesterday that the "hotel" part is not being covered by the NI increase. The money is to be spent on the care aspect (i.e. the professional fees for the interaction between carer and caree) but not on the accommodation.Dorset_Boy said:
Owning your home is not, and never should be seen as an investment. It is putting a roof over your head.rick_chasey said:kingstongraham said:
The increase in real house values over the past 50 years is a pure unearned income. The current system taxes that in a "pot luck" way.rick_chasey said:
It's not really about 'protecting assets'.john80 said:
I am not disputing it is a professional job. What I am disputing is that there is a solution that protects those individuals assets that is acceptable to the public and therefore can be financed. The public has just about swallowed a 1.25% tax increase and this is probably their limit. The idea that as something is a disease means that it is free to care for is not the way the NHS works for a lot of other conditions. When you get terminal cancer and have a year to live what does the NHS, benefits and you cover.pblakeney said:
You have clearly not had to care for someone with Alzheimers or Dementia otherwise you would know it is not something that a member of the general public can cope with. There is a reason they end up in care and it is not convenience.john80 said:Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die.
Any further input from yourself on the subject is invalidated by lack of experience and knowledge.
You are not really understanding the issue.
It basically boils down to fairness. It should not be down to pot luck whether the illness you get should be paid for or not.
I have long advocated for a carefully implemented private healthcare system, so it is not about not wanting to not pay for anything.
The costs for a lot of illnesses are vast. I don't begrudge anyone any free treatment. That's how it's run. I know plenty of people who have had life-long care for their illnesses which must be a vast cost. That's absolutely fine. Appropriate even.
I just don't see that you have to have an exception for dementia because rather than being born with it you develop it in old age and rather than it being visible it's mental.
I think everyone recognises that it needs to be paid somehow. The question is how to do that in a fair and appropriate way.
1) there is an argument that returns on investment aren't really 'unearned' income as you are risking your capital for said investment. I think that's a reasonable argument, unless you feel the same about all investing, but then you will struggle to get an an economy moving.
2) I totally take that a means tested solution is likely to be fair, though again, I would suggest that you should then means test for all illnesses, rather than just the ones that require involved professional care in later life.
Investing is all about accepting risk to your capital. It is why putting money in a bank account is not investing, or buying Premium Bonds is not investing.
Funding of care certainly should be means tested. The nursing / medical care element should be paid for by the State, but the hotel cost side should be means tested, and the cap of £86,000 is ridiculously low - it's not even 3 year's worth of residential home fees, and is only about 1/3rd of the average UK house price.Wilier Izoard XP0 -
You are correct so the bill will be well over the 86k cap and the house will still have to be sold.laurentian said:
I could be wrong here but I'm sure I heard yesterday that the "hotel" part is not being covered by the NI increase. The money is to be spent on the care aspect (i.e. the professional fees for the interaction between carer and caree) but not on the accommodation.Dorset_Boy said:
Owning your home is not, and never should be seen as an investment. It is putting a roof over your head.rick_chasey said:kingstongraham said:
The increase in real house values over the past 50 years is a pure unearned income. The current system taxes that in a "pot luck" way.rick_chasey said:
It's not really about 'protecting assets'.john80 said:
I am not disputing it is a professional job. What I am disputing is that there is a solution that protects those individuals assets that is acceptable to the public and therefore can be financed. The public has just about swallowed a 1.25% tax increase and this is probably their limit. The idea that as something is a disease means that it is free to care for is not the way the NHS works for a lot of other conditions. When you get terminal cancer and have a year to live what does the NHS, benefits and you cover.pblakeney said:
You have clearly not had to care for someone with Alzheimers or Dementia otherwise you would know it is not something that a member of the general public can cope with. There is a reason they end up in care and it is not convenience.john80 said:Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die.
Any further input from yourself on the subject is invalidated by lack of experience and knowledge.
You are not really understanding the issue.
It basically boils down to fairness. It should not be down to pot luck whether the illness you get should be paid for or not.
I have long advocated for a carefully implemented private healthcare system, so it is not about not wanting to not pay for anything.
The costs for a lot of illnesses are vast. I don't begrudge anyone any free treatment. That's how it's run. I know plenty of people who have had life-long care for their illnesses which must be a vast cost. That's absolutely fine. Appropriate even.
I just don't see that you have to have an exception for dementia because rather than being born with it you develop it in old age and rather than it being visible it's mental.
I think everyone recognises that it needs to be paid somehow. The question is how to do that in a fair and appropriate way.
1) there is an argument that returns on investment aren't really 'unearned' income as you are risking your capital for said investment. I think that's a reasonable argument, unless you feel the same about all investing, but then you will struggle to get an an economy moving.
2) I totally take that a means tested solution is likely to be fair, though again, I would suggest that you should then means test for all illnesses, rather than just the ones that require involved professional care in later life.
Investing is all about accepting risk to your capital. It is why putting money in a bank account is not investing, or buying Premium Bonds is not investing.
Funding of care certainly should be means tested. The nursing / medical care element should be paid for by the State, but the hotel cost side should be means tested, and the cap of £86,000 is ridiculously low - it's not even 3 year's worth of residential home fees, and is only about 1/3rd of the average UK house price.0 -
ok explain to me how your definition of an investment doesn't apply to the home you own and live in.Dorset_Boy said:
Sorry Rick, it really isn't.rick_chasey said:Owning a home is an investment, whether you want to treat it like one or not.
Given the vast majority of people buy a house with a mortgage, it is even worse, it's a leveraged investment!! Anyone who buys a home with a mortgage is running a risk (however small) that the investment will cost you multiplies of the money you put into it.
I would suggest Dorset that it is vitally important people realise that owning a home is indeed an investment, so they understand the implications of price movements in the sector.Investing is all about accepting risk to your capital.0 -
Surely the fact is that idealistically it shouldn't be an investment - but the reality is that it is an investment.Dorset_Boy said:
Sorry Rick, it really isn't.rick_chasey said:Owning a home is an investment, whether you want to treat it like one or not.
Given the vast majority of people buy a house with a mortgage, it is even worse, it's a leveraged investment!! Anyone who buys a home with a mortgage is running a risk (however small) that the investment will cost you multiplies of the money you put into it.
I would suggest Dorset that it is vitally important people realise that owning a home is indeed an investment, so they understand the implications of price movements in the sector.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
But if you don't buy a house you are effectively splashing out a similar amount on rent so you don't really have much choice. You at least have something to show for it at the end. It's a hire purchase.rick_chasey said:Owning a home is an investment, whether you want to treat it like one or not.
Given the vast majority of people buy a house with a mortgage, it is even worse, it's a leveraged investment!! Anyone who buys a home with a mortgage is running a risk (however small) that the investment will cost you multiplies of the money you put into it.
I would suggest Dorset that it is vitally important people realise that owning a home is indeed an investment, so they understand the implications of price movements in the sector, as it is almost always the most expensive thing anyone ever does and it's critical to living a safe life.0 -
Because it is the roof over your head. You need somewhere to live. It is an asset yes, but not an investment.rick_chasey said:
ok explain to me how your definition of an investment doesn't apply to the home you own and live in.Dorset_Boy said:
Sorry Rick, it really isn't.rick_chasey said:Owning a home is an investment, whether you want to treat it like one or not.
Given the vast majority of people buy a house with a mortgage, it is even worse, it's a leveraged investment!! Anyone who buys a home with a mortgage is running a risk (however small) that the investment will cost you multiplies of the money you put into it.
I would suggest Dorset that it is vitally important people realise that owning a home is indeed an investment, so they understand the implications of price movements in the sector.Investing is all about accepting risk to your capital.
Sure the value will fluctuate, but there isn't a true market for most properties because you only have a single willing seller, and the vast majority of properties are not for sale. anyway.
We may just have to disagree.
0 -
-
Not really.rick_chasey said:But your capital is at risk!?
0 -
How is it not?!
Are you so used to rising house prices that you can't conceive of an instance when that doesn't happen?0 -
If a couple bought an average priced house in London in 1995 for £100k, then the second of them popped their clogs in 2021 (the surviving spouse having inherited the house when the first sadly passed away), the £600k that the house is now worth can be passed on completely tax free - plus another £400k tax free if it is to a direct descendant.
That £500k uplift has been accumulated through nothing other than living in the house. Or £400k of it if you want to adjust for inflation.0 -
The problem here is that a CHC is based on the needs and not illness. Having dementia does not bar you however you need to have complex needs. In essence this system seems fair to me in that it is applied based on need and does not exclude dementia or any other specific illness. If the argument is that this needs a lower threshold to include all those you think are eligible then make the case and say how you are going to fund it as I don't think the 1.25% will cut the mustard.Pross said:
It depends on a CHC assessment, if the needs are primarily health related you don't have to self-fund and there is no means testing.john80 said:
I think you need to have a think about how things like Parkinsons etc are funded. For sure the medical treatment will be free but the living costs are not free if you can't work. You then enter the benefits system and this is means tested much like social care for the elderly. So by all means if you and many other posters think that Alzheimers or Dementia get special treatment or should get special treatment then I don't see your logic. You can be a 40 year old who gets Parkinsons but if you own a house you most likely won't own much of it after a couple of decades once the benefits system takes its cut. This is before you get to the nursing home.Pross said:
Are there any other long term illnesses you think we should pay for ourselves? I know people who have had treatment for years for cancer before it finally kills them, what about things like emphysema that may require treatment for decades. I'm really struggling to understand why you have chosen one particular disease as something that shouldn't be treated free by the NHS - what about things like MND, Parkinsons or life-long conditions such as severe autism?john80 said:
What I am trying to convey to you is think of what the doctor's surgery or local hospital treats you for and are setup for. They use scale and efficiency to deliver those services. Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die. Should you do that for free where your house and all your assets sit idle to be passed on through inheritance or should those resources pay for your care. Remember the time when people mainly died before getting these diseases and family were meant to care for their own. We have essentially sub contracted out these care roles for many reasons and we seem to be getting fed the line that this care should be covered as a free at source.Pross said:
You genuinely don't see dementia as an illness? Have you ever had a family member suffer with it? Whilst it is more common in over 65s you can get it far earlier in life too.john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
So my question to you would be if it is a free at source disease then you presumably would be happy with a trust setting up a specialist care home. They would be massive for scale and basic for minimum cost as under NICE guidelines we have to maximise tax payer benefit. You would be treated as you would at any hospital where the food would not be free, visitors would get charged by the hospital and if you don't feed your relatives they die after a while. This is a pretty standard hospital setup. Be careful what you wish for.
You want choice you need to pay for it as my family have done so in the past.
Your argument seems to be that because these illnesses may currently require people to sell their houses to pay for care at present then that should continue to be the case. You singled out dementia as a long-term issue that shouldn't come under free care (seemingly as it's just some old people who their relatives can't be bothered to care for) so I was pointing out other examples of long-term issues that can affect people of all ages (censored indeed can dementia). I haven't seen anyone suggesting dementia getting special treatment, they have been saying the exact opposite and that it should be treated the same as other illnesses. The new rules will hopefully go some way towards rectifying this discrepancy although there will still be an amount of assets above which the person will have to self-fund. I could maybe understand your point if it is just a case of people chucking their parents in an old folks home because they've started to need a bit of assistance and it is too much hassle but that isn't what dementia is.0
