Social care

The Commons is half way through its closing debates on the Health and Care Bill.

I have concerns about both main elements of the legislation.  The first concern the extensive reorganisation of NHS England. This gives legislative force to the  creation of Integrated Care Boards and Integrated Care Partnerships. These bodies are  being set up to change the landscape of purchasing services from the NHS trusts, GP partnerships  and other providers. They bring together various  budgets, decide on what they need to provide for their area and divide up the budget to seek to procure what is needed.

I am not clear as to how they will  be better than the Clinical Commissioning Groups they replace  nor see why their boundaries have been configured as they are. There are big variations in geographical area and populations covered by these bodies. They need to hit the ground running now, as they have a big job to supervise the expenditures of large and increasing sums of money with a view to providing high quality care throughout England, and to bring waiting lists and times down to more acceptable levels. My concern is too much time and resource might go into reorganisation when we need it to be pushed to the front line to provide the extra treatments and care needed by the large influx of patients.

The second concern is about the social care reform. I have written and spoken before about the need to put raising the quality of care and supplying enough of it to the fore of the consideration, rather than the vexed issue of how much people need to pay for themselves where they have assets. For many years there has been cross party support for the proposition that all frail elderly people should get their health care free as part of the NHS pledge, but should pay for their own board and lodging where they can afford to do so. It has meant that where someone moves into a Care home leaving their old home empty it is usual for it to be sold and for them to pay for their hotel costs at the Care Home from their own resources.

There have been some who suggest that placing a cap on care costs will free many people from having to sell their homes to pay the bills, but this does not cover the costs of board and lodging which can be considerable. There is a danger that some will think this new system and legislation will free their families from the need to sell a home and spend the proceeds, when in many cases there will still  be substantial bills that people need to self fund. There is also the danger that the introduction of a Care Tax , starting at around 1.25% on National Insurance, will make people think social care is cheap. In practice this tax will pay for around one fifth of the total state costs of social care.

There needs to be more discussion and more consideration of what social care will look like in five years time, and how we will all help pay for it.

152 Comments

  1. SM
    November 23, 2021

    Having had the experience a few years ago of dealing with 2 close relatives and their considerable need for different kinds of care, I believe there should be far more encouragement for private companies to build and provide a variety of care facilities.

    Some in need of care will require both medical and personal care while at the other end of the scale, some will simply need a helping hand and practical help or supervision.

    I see no reason why those with assets – State/final salary and private pensions, savings and homes – should not fund their own care, except where a partner or close relative is already living with the ‘patient’ and is dependent on them financially. If there are plenty of facilities to choose from, perhaps this might reduce some of the charges.

    Reply
    1. Footprint
      November 23, 2021

      SM I am old enough to remember Mrs Thatcher`s policy which she saw as the efforts of the previous generation (the savings monies from which they have amassed and paid taxes on where necessary) would have a “trickle down” effect in helping to make the next generation`s passage through life easier .
      In my opinion, nothing wrong with that, particularly where it is becoming difficult for young people to get on the housing ladder and have enough money even to fund a deposit, never mind pay exorbitant mortgage costs. I realise if nobody else does their children are the tax payers of the future and it would be nice if we didn`t have to rely on massive immigration to keep numbers up.(Note to Sir John, is this the real reason for the dolally performance in the Chanel – keep `em coming, they`re going to pay the civil servants and all the rest in the government`s pay PENSIONS)

      I understand the proposed new system includes a cap at £89,000 – this is unfair to the low paid who`s house is worth £100,000 say and the chap who`s mansion (semi in Surrey) kicks in at half a million.
      I thought Mrs May`s scheme was better, as I understand it she proposed not that there would be a cap, but there would be a remaining benefit of £100,000
      But essentially I am against the whole principle of State Confiscation

      Am I right in thinking Care in the Community is free in Scotland?

      Reply
      1. Hope
        November 24, 2021

        I think the social adult care policy is to mop up what was left after Tories robbed the dead from inheritance tax!

        Reply
  2. Shirley M
    November 23, 2021

    Scottish people get much better assistance than the English. There is much inequality within the UK. Maybe the government should look to Scotland and see how they manage to provide care without taking peoples homes and all of their savings (less £23k).

    Reply
    1. jerry
      November 23, 2021

      @Shirley M; Yes indeed, but then Scotland has had either a Labour or SNP devolved govt since devolution, basically Socialist in ethos…

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        November 23, 2021

        Yes they are good at spending other people’s money.

        Reply
        1. jerry
          November 24, 2021

          @Peter2; “other people’s money”

          Pardon?…
          Oh you must mean how the Tory govts in London, since May 1979, have been very good at spending Scottish 0il & gas tax revenue for them… You make the SNP’s case very well young Peter! 😛

          Once paid, title to the money changes, just as with any legal fiscal translation, Money paid to HMT is no more ‘my money’ than the money paid to a supermarket for goods received.

          Reply
          1. Peter2
            November 24, 2021

            No I dont mean that Jerry.

    2. Beecee
      November 23, 2021

      Barnet formula – the English taxpayer is paying for it!

      Reply
      1. JoolsB
        November 23, 2021

        Exactly.

        Reply
    3. lifelogic
      November 23, 2021

      Well that is because the English are over taxes to give them more money to waste than is fair to the English. They also fund free degrees for Scottish (not english) students with this money.

      So the foolish Boris is to force all new houses to install electric car charge points so as to push up the costs of new houses for everyone and increase inflation even further I assume. Many buyers will never need one and many might need two, three, four or five. There are different types and speeds or charge too. So why one earth does government know best on this rather than house buyers? Mad deluded socialism.

      Perhaps top down, one size fits all, government should design all our homes, specify room sizes, numbers of bathrooms, bedrooms, garden sizes, disables access, demand lifts, insulation levels, heating systems, solar cell roofs…

      Reply
      1. lifelogic
        November 23, 2021

        Bank of England to pay for employees sex change operation I read. Should help with recruitment from that sector I suppose.

        Will they pay for employees delayed cancer, hip and knee operations or only the sex change ones? They seem to be very generous with tax payers money.

        How many taxpayers would support this largess & the selectivity I wonder?

        Reply
        1. Narrow Shoulders
          November 23, 2021

          There is a pre-existing condition clause I would like to read.

          Reply
    4. John Miller
      November 23, 2021

      By taxing the English!

      Reply
    5. Andy
      November 23, 2021

      Scotland has a decent government – with a Parliament which actually reflects the will of the people.

      And we are lumbered with Daddy Pig Johnson and his rabble of corrupt and sleazy incompetents – who most of us do not vote for.

      Reply
      1. alan jutson
        November 23, 2021

        Andy It also has the highest number of drug addicts in Europe, is that the will of the people as well ?
        Not much point in just looking at one simple example of anything, you have to look at the overall picture to get a sense of anything.

        Reply
      2. lifelogic
        November 23, 2021

        If Sturgeon represents the will of the Scots people they are in a mess.

        Reply
      3. Peter2
        November 23, 2021

        Now you how I felt for 15 years when we had the disaster that was Blair and Brown young Andy.
        Before your time I would guess.

        Reply
        1. ukretired123
          November 23, 2021

          I’ve always suspected Andy was SNP based on his contempt and loathing from Brexit, Conservative and British in favour of EU, Brussels and now SNP. His nom de plume was rumbled a long time ago.

          Reply
    6. JoolsB
      November 23, 2021

      Scotland as well as the devolved nations gets much better funding on everything thanks to this Tory Government. We all know by now they care nought for England Shirley despite relying on England for its position. More fool us. I see thanks to Gove’s scrapping of EVEL, the meddling SNP plus all the other interfering MPs elected outside of England voted last night on the Social Care Bill even though it only affects England.

      Are your colleagues squatting in English seats aware of the contempt we hold them in John?

      Reply
    7. Hope
      November 23, 2021

      If the Useless fake Tories govt. can spend multiple tens of billions on overseas aid and housing illegal immigration in four star hotels it can afford to pay for social care for its citizens or provide homes for homeless people, service veterans etc.

      This policy directly taxes the poor more than the rich. A post code policy to help Johnson’s donor mates!

      Is you govt capable of doing sums JR?

      Reply
    8. rose
      November 23, 2021

      They send the bill to the English.

      Reply
    9. Peter Parsons
      November 23, 2021

      Not true. The official ONS figures show that people in the North West of England (at £3,086 per person) and the North East of England (at £4,121 per person) are subsidised more than Scots (at £2,918 per person).

      Reply
      1. a-tracy
        November 24, 2021

        And where are Labour the most prominent Peter the NorthWest and NorthEast. With the worst schools, mass immigration filling up all the social housing, a majority of poorer residents before because the mother’s of school-age children don’t work as the majority do, when they move claimants around into towns like Blackpool they kill off the resort so that B&Bs are turned into junkie dens and more families stop going.

        The Tories need to concentrate on just why the subsidy is so high and work on that, I believe a lot of this is because of turnover being claimed in London rather than where it is generated i.e. online sales if those sales are in the NorthEast and NorthWest but the HQ is in the South East where is that tax remitted?

        Reply
    10. Footprint
      November 23, 2021

      Sorry Shirley M you have just answered the question I posed in my reply to SM, before I got down to reading your excedllent posting
      Thank you and also thanks for other comments of yours I have read elsewhere, you generally hit the nail on the head.

      Reply
  3. Mark B
    November 23, 2021

    Good morning.

    It is important to remind ourselves how we got into this mess. Other countries, many less developed, do not seem to have a problem with this. The reason is simple. The State does not provide, or is expected to do so, the family is.

    Before the beginning of the Second World War and the creation of the Welfare State in the UK, the family was expected to care for both young and old. Women were expected to stay at home or, at the very least, have a small part time job in which the husband would work and be either the sole or main income earner. Post Second World War and the creation of the Welfare State women were encouraged to go out to work and earn money and build a career. This has all sorts of implications, for low child birth rates to caring for grandparents. It has, as we can see from the article, a whole industry of non-jobs that create nothing are made with, I might add, with large salaries and benefits.

    Whilst China, Germany, Japan and South Korea make things for us to buy we just create endless bureaucracy.

    Reply
    1. Al
      November 24, 2021

      Sadly the cost of living has gone up so much that lower earning families cannot live on one income. It is not improving: according to the IFS taxes are at the highest level “since the post war recovery of 1950” and wages are growing more slowly than any time since the depression of the 1930s.

      If you want families to go back to one earner, you need to cut their costs and a good start would be reducing the amount the government needs to pay for and then reducing taxes.

      Reply
    2. Hope
      November 24, 2021

      +1

      Reply
  4. DOM
    November 23, 2021

    ‘how we will all pay for it’. We know how and we know who as well. The State has become a parasite in our lives. It encourages dependency to assert control. Like a debt collector.

    I have an idea. Reject the State’s solution and take responsibility by looking after your own parents yourself. That’s what I’ll be doing. The solution will be kept within the family with that responsibility embraced. There will be no State involvement except other than medical help as required which I don’t mind paying for

    The leeching British State and the morally bankrupt NHS can rot for all I care. I for one am sick and tired of listening to these whingeing grifters from the NHS

    If your party leader hadn’t encouraged Marxist style conditioning by forcing us to clap for a clapped out Socialist organisation that is the NHS then you’d be able without fear be able to put forward practical solutions but no, you take advice from Marxists and this is where it gets us, in the mire

    Well done.

    Reply
    1. Mark B
      November 24, 2021

      +1 And it is what I did.

      I gave up work looking after mine.

      Reply
  5. Sea_Warrior
    November 23, 2021

    I would have taken the money to fund social care from the foreign aid budget and given tax-payers an option of paying 0.7% of their gross income to FCOD. But hey, I know nothing about politics.

    Reply
    1. Narrow Shoulders
      November 23, 2021

      I would have set up a national fund (invested not ponzi style) that could voluntarily be paid into as an insurance policy for social care.

      Seems something that should be insured.

      Reply
    2. jerry
      November 23, 2021

      @S_W; Indeed you do not know anything about politics, once again you prefer to trash the UK’s international standing, but then expect others to bend over backwards, whilst riding a motorbike through a burning hoop, to help the UK…

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        November 23, 2021

        How do you know Sea Warrier doesn’t know anything about politics Jerry?
        Where is your actual proof.
        Data.
        Facts.
        Quotes
        I expect you award yourself a very high mark for knowing absolutely everything one needs to know about politics.

        Reply
      2. Micky Taking
        November 24, 2021

        politics! – the art of talking, but not doing, giving opinion without experience, expecting respect but not earning it, living comfortably but expressing sympathy for the poor, promising money to everybody and everything which isn’t yours…..
        Our host being an exception.

        Reply
        1. jerry
          November 25, 2021

          @MT; Your comment also describes social media, the art of talking, but not doing, giving opinion without experience etc. Ho-hum… 🙂

          Reply
    3. majorfrustration
      November 23, 2021

      1+ Far too obvious for a politician to think of that

      Reply
    4. Ian Wragg
      November 23, 2021

      Excellent idea. I would also propose that people pay into a social security fund to cover these costs. It could be called National Insurance. Oh wait ………

      Reply
    5. agricola
      November 23, 2021

      Fine it’s a solution , but not before a root and branch reform of the administration of the NHS.

      Reply
    6. JPM
      November 23, 2021

      Great idea!

      Reply
    7. Andy
      November 23, 2021

      I would give taxpayers the option of whether or not to fund pensions, social care, extra NHS care and other perks for the elderly.

      Given the choice I imagine most taxpayers would want the almost 50% of their taxes back which are used to fund the old.

      Reply
      1. Beecee
        November 23, 2021

        “….there he goes again….”

        Reply
      2. Peter2
        November 23, 2021

        Would you also give the taxpayers the choice to fund or not, child benefits and education costs, young Andy?

        Reply
      3. Mike Wilson
        November 23, 2021

        Given the choice I imagine most taxpayers would want the almost 50% of their taxes back which are used to fund the old.

        And I would want almost 50% of the taxes I paid over 48 years paid back to me – so I could pay for my own care. That’s fair – isn’t it?

        Reply
        1. Footprint
          November 23, 2021

          i think you would need it with compound interest or you would soon be out of pocket

          Reply
      4. Martyn G
        November 23, 2021

        Andy, please do tell us how you are going to fund your own retirement and pension(s?) without relying on the younger workers to do so?

        Reply
  6. Javelin
    November 23, 2021

    I see contradictory comments in the Daily Telegraph regarding Boris’s Pepper Pig Speech. Pro- Boris Tim Stanley says “Boris Johnson’s rambling Peppa Pig speech was an inadvertent success” whilst anti- Boris Lucy Fletcher says “ ‘It’s just not working’: Concerns grow about Boris Johnson after bizarre Peppa Pig speech”.

    Both articles implicitly hint that Boris was suffering from the same kind of mental drift seen in the White House. A small number of comments appreciate Boris is an amusing leader.

    Perhaps the kindest statement was in the comments section. “Johnson looks like he has the makings of a great after dinner speaker – let’s help along with that new career.”

    Reply
    1. No Longer Anonymous
      November 23, 2021

      One thing I do notice is that it was all over the BBC whereas Biden’s faux pas are hidden from view.

      Reply
  7. Micky Taking
    November 23, 2021

    So you Voted FOR the Social Care bill, Sir John?
    So we will have a maximum charged on helping someone wash and dress.
    Marvellous.
    Meanwhile the Care Home owners get rich.

    Reply
  8. turboterrier
    November 23, 2021

    With the burdening pressure being put on the tax payers by the invasion by thousands of immigrants , it is essential as you quite rightly recognise is that it will have to be a long term strategy that is adopted.
    Social Care has always been a minefield and highly immobile subject and open to abuse.
    The whole concept of Social Care must be revisited and the areas perceived as waste or abused must be addressed as like the NHS it has become a bottomless pit. But whether political parties see that as a vote winner remains to be seen.

    Reply
  9. Iain Gill
    November 23, 2021

    Leaving towns like Rugby with one, thats correct, one ambulance is ridiculous. That the town has no A & E is ridiculous. That one ambulance spends more than half its day on the long journey to Coventry A & E. If there is a car accident with multiple casualties then there are not enough ambulances, and they will all in any case be going on a very long journey to hospital. Not to mention the congestion and the total lack of parking at the Coventry A & E. This in a town which is having tens of thousands of new houses being built, and consequent increase in population. The NHS completely fails to react to the obvious absurdity of these situations.

    As for social care there has got to be an incentive in the system to save, there has got to be an incentive to have a nice house, having it taken away when people in Scotland are getting similar public services for free, and where the feckless are getting services free.

    Reply
  10. Oldtimer
    November 23, 2021

    I have no confidence in the Johnson government, his ability to lead it or to ensure that complex issues are adequately examined before decisions are made. Bold assertions made using striking language serve only to camouflage the absence of clear thought about the consequences of what is asserted. Sooner or later the bungling incompetence of the No 10 operation is laid bare for us all to see. It is beyond time that Tory MPs replaced him.

    Reply
    1. Sea_Warrior
      November 23, 2021

      +1. We need someone in No 10 who knows right from wrong, right from left and their backside from their elbow. That rules out Boris Johnson.

      Reply
      1. glen cullen
        November 23, 2021

        You can rule out any moral compass with Boris…his dial is swinging whichever way the media and carrie pushes it

        Reply
    2. Sir Joe Soap
      November 23, 2021

      Without having looked at this reform, it seems to me a dog’s breakfast. Why does EVERYTING this government does end up being dumped? They’re clearly facing in the wrong direction on so many lavels. Get some experienced heads in there instead of all these young numbskulls!

      Reply
      1. Footprint
        November 23, 2021

        Remember `Yes Minister`, how Civil Servants manouvered Jim Hacker.
        I have a feeling even `young ministers (with no `real job` experience) are not being provided with the correct information, .particularly if their are dyed in the wool remoaners amongst them.
        or perhaps they are among those still `holidaying` at home to avoid Covid I would say where strategy is being discussed and worked up, a full complement in the office is of high necessity.

        It could be Ministers are being short changed.
        Remember how Cummings had to fight them

        Reply
        1. Mark B
          November 24, 2021

          +1

          If you, like our kind host, have enough experience both in life and commerce then you are less likely to be hoodwinked by the CS. No wonder they do not want him or anyone like him in government.

          Reply
    3. lifelogic
      November 23, 2021

      Alas any replacement (given the dire state of most Tory MP would be even worse, as would Lab/SNP. We just need Boris to get his act together and ignore Carrie and the net zero, lefty, tax to death, borrow and piss down the drain loons like Sunak.

      Reply
    4. Nig l
      November 23, 2021

      The Tory MPs knew this from the beginning riding on the back of his popularity to get into power with a large number on the payroll.

      Many underwhelming so no Boris, no seat/job.

      We are now seeing the result foretold by those without vested interests. Obviously Covid could not have been factored in but neither has been the fact that post Brexit divergence has been total BS, weak Ministers neither able to stand up to him or their civil servants and a Chancellor turning out to be a social democrat, surprise surprise the Brexit opposing Treasury mirroring the EU model.

      Lord Frost, spot on. When will Tory MPs grow some backbone?

      Reply
    5. lifelogic
      November 23, 2021

      Some say the Conservative Party will ditch Boris if he no longer looks like a winner. Well they did not ditch John Major long after he was clearly going to almost destroy the part for 3+ terms. Surely almost anyone should win against Starmer/SNP who on earth would want that prospect? The party has at best 100 sensible MPs so any Boris Replacement would likely be another Major or May type of LidDem disaster.

      But can Boris ignore Carrie return to his old, small government, low tax, non green crap self? The UK energy marked is a disaster created by government green loon policies and the system with now with the collapse of Bulb.

      Reply
      1. Micky Taking
        November 23, 2021

        What do you mean ‘ if he no longer looks like a winner.’?
        Surely that happened a very long time ago.

        Reply
    6. Peter
      November 23, 2021

      Oldtimer,
      Yes, Boris Johnson has been rumbled for some time now. His thoughts of remaining in charge for longer than Tony Blair will have to be revised.

      I think the plan now will simply be to survive for one term and then turn to his globalist chums and pursue his plan to accumulate serious wealth.

      Reply
      1. wanderer
        November 24, 2021

        +1. He’ll probably look to being Al Gore lite. Keeps the missus happy, plenty of dosh and lots of travel around the world with the rich and famous.

        Reply
  11. Dave Andrews
    November 23, 2021

    The solution to care homes isn’t a cap, it’s insurance. I might have to go into a care home one day, or I might not. If I put by a war chest for the purpose, it might never need it and could have spent the money whilst fit. Many people won’t have the income to pay for it anyway, but they might afford an insurance policy.
    Two snags, one, there aren’t any insurance policies offered for the purpose, and two, if there were the value is eroded by insurance premium tax.
    The government needs to work with the insurance industry and scrap IPT (or perhaps hypothecate it to pay for the needy who can’t afford a policy).

    Reply
  12. Nottingham Lad Himself
    November 23, 2021

    One intention of capitalism is that the working classes, within families, never build up any property ownership.

    So, as they reach the end of their useful lives “medical” science will prolong any debilitating illness in such a way that they need protracted care, which will be paid for by the disposal of their assets.

    Once these have been used up, then, well, you know.

    This ensures that subsequent generations remain servile wage slaves.

    Reply
    1. Mike Wilson
      November 23, 2021

      One intention of capitalism is that the working classes, within families, never build up any property ownership

      That’s a sobering thought. Many of us – the baby boomer generation – got out of the working class courtesy of a grammar school education. We bought our own homes and thought we’d hand them on to our children so they, too, could keep out of the clutches of the capitalist scumbags. If you own your own home you have a bit of security so you don’t have to spend your life slaving for whoever allows you to work for them.

      Well, stuff ’em. I’ve already handed over a lot of my money to my kids and I am now going to give them my house. As long as I live 7 years and don’t need care in that time – the state (which I have ‘paid into’ for 48 years) can pay for my care if I do need it.

      Reply
    2. Peter2
      November 23, 2021

      Straight out of the Marxist play book NHL
      If any party have encouraged home ownership for all, it is the Conservatives.
      Labour want to keep people in Council houses paying rent and in receipt of benefits.
      The client state writ large.

      Reply
    3. Footprint
      November 23, 2021

      Well said Nottingham Lad

      Guaranteed permanent wage slave cadre!

      Reply
    4. a-tracy
      November 24, 2021

      That is wrong NLH. All of my family and my husbands family were from the working class, council house stock and their families have all got on the housing ladder, they just don’t live in the best location, location, locations.

      Reply
      1. Nottingham Lad Himself
        November 25, 2021

        So does that fact mean that they would miraculously be exempt from meeting the £83,000 charge if the circumstances arose?

        I’m sorry, but I don’t see what your point has to do with my comment Tracy.

        Reply
        1. a-tracy
          November 25, 2021

          NLH “One intention of capitalism is that the working classes, within families, never build up any property ownership.”

          It is capitalism that helped them all to achieve this. Several own their own companies now employing many people, from factory floor and cleaner.

          The only way you can exempt yourself is to look after your own, extreme nursing care should not be charged.

          Reply
  13. Sharon
    November 23, 2021

    People who understand better than I, have said the new social care plan will, as you say, not cover board and lodging. The new plan will only benefit the wealthy, and penalise the poorer and lower middle class folk. It does seem lately, any reforms are penalising the poor, every time.

    Reply
    1. a-tracy
      November 24, 2021

      Sharon, I agree, perhaps it is to make the poor to whose offspring £100,000 is a lot of money care for their own elderly so paid for care is only going to the most wealthy. This is just a bad idea, John.

      Reply
  14. Andy
    November 23, 2021

    Why should my taxes be used to fund social care of rich pensioners who just want to pass more of their wealth onto their rich kids?

    Why should my taxes be used to fund the social care of the feckless who haven’t saved for their own care?

    PAY FOR YOURSELF.

    If you won’t, tough. If you can’t, tough.

    Reply
    1. Mike Wilson
      November 23, 2021

      Why should my taxes be used to fund the social care of the feckless who haven’t saved for their own care?

      Oooh, a tricky one. Let’s have a think. YOU said we are paying about 50% tax – which I absolutely agree on – when you add income tax, national insurance, council tax, VAT, duties on fuel etc. etc. And we always have done. Basic rate tax was 33% when I were a lad.

      So, people who haven’t saved for their own care aren’t feckless. They have been giving government 50% of their money all their lives so the government could pay for their care if they were unlucky enough to need it.
      If you don’t want to provide the care, PAY THE …..MONEY BACK!

      Reply
    2. Micky Taking
      November 23, 2021

      You are such a caring, socially responsible chap fully coming to terms with the requirement to live within a societal structure. In Mother Teresa terms, you must be Father Andrew.

      Reply
  15. Old Albion
    November 23, 2021

    How many Scottish/Welsh/N.Irish constituency MP’s voted for this legislation that applies only to England?

    Reply
  16. JayGee
    November 23, 2021

    I find it difficult to accept that you voted in favour of this Bill, rushed through without due care by anybody it seems. It creates more problems than it solves. You say that there needs to be “more discussion and more consideration of what social care will look like in five years time, and how we will all help pay for it”. Why did you vote for this Bill then? You’ve all had years to give consideration to the whole damn thing. There’s sweet nothing we, the fools on the other side of the hill, can do to change the whole rotten system. That’s what you’re supposed to be doing. But yet again, you failed us.

    The more I listened to the debate, the more I realised that so few of our MPs have any understanding of what you call ‘social care’. And still you voted for this Bill. Fine mess. Meanwhile our PM lost his way, crashed the car, blabbered on about Peppa Pig and still you prop him up. What a disgrace.

    Reply
  17. Narrow Shoulders
    November 23, 2021

    As with child benefit – Tax payer funded social care should either be universal or it should not be available to anyone. Those paying for themselves certainly should not be subsidising those who aren’t.

    As ever it is easier to beat those who do the right thing.

    Reply
  18. Mike Wroe
    November 23, 2021

    Now is the time for the Insurance sector to come up with creative ideas for funding social care now that there is clarity over what such a scheme needs to achieve.

    Reply
  19. Sir Joe Soap
    November 23, 2021

    Surely the way to do this is an insurance policy starting at say 40 years old. Old enough to be earning decently, young enough to have time to contribute. This pays out later only for social care, but based on contribution levels over those years.

    Reply
    1. No Longer Anonymous
      November 23, 2021

      Surely the way to do this is have a balanced economy with realistic house prices so that families stay near to each other and can afford to look after their own as they used to.

      Reply
  20. Pud
    November 23, 2021

    A problem with means testing any social security benefit, e.g. board and lodging in care homes, is that the people who were funding it through their taxes when they were working don’t benefit from it when they need it.

    Reply
  21. majorfrustration
    November 23, 2021

    First rule of politics – when in doubt reorganize the NHS and forget for four years.

    Reply
  22. agricola
    November 23, 2021

    You do not need Care Boards and Care Partnerships to organise efficient purchasing of NHS needs. You need a professional purchasing department split Drugs, Consumables, and Capital Equipment to supply the whole of the NHS. Just ask Toyota how they do it . Any such Board/Partnership is shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic just to employ an already failed administration, get rid of them and offer them retraining as HGV drivers.
    Anything that rewards the profligate and penalises those who have led a responsible life is a moral and political perversion. Government obviously consider the State Pension adequate for life’s costs so confiscate that to cover hotel costs. The state theft applied to those who have been thrifty in life is morally repugnant. and politically very expensive. When it is added to what your party have screwed up in this year alone I would not look beyond 2024 in terms of a political career. Even the opposition can only think in terms of paralleling what the EU do with undeclared future motives. Wake up, the casserole has dried out and I can smell burning.

    Reply
    1. agricola
      November 23, 2021

      Your excessively late moderation convinces nobody. This diary is fast becoming a troll opportunity and is loosing its attraction.

      Reply
      1. Mark B
        November 24, 2021

        +1

        Reply
  23. jerry
    November 23, 2021

    @Oldtimer; “It is beyond time that Tory MPs replaced him.”

    Indeed, especially after yesterdays car crash speech at the CBI, complete with sound effects (allegedly)! But is there anyone in the current party who could replace BoJo, those who could face down SKS were all exiled from the parliamentary party at the last election. A real dilemma for the party, replace Boris now, perhaps with a totally unknown, and still loose the next election or let Boris lead the party into opposition and then blame & replace him?

    PS, To bad the CBI with their slogan, how many watching the excerpts of the PM speech will have read the words Seize the moment as ‘Sleize’ the moment…

    Reply
    1. Peter2
      November 23, 2021

      Mid term
      Study your political history Jerry.
      Seeing you claim to be an expert.

      Reply
      1. jerry
        November 24, 2021

        @P2; “Study your political history Jerry.”

        Unlike your knees Peter2, I have…

        Mrs Thatcher was ousted mid (election) term in Nov. 1990 (next election due 1992).
        Mrs May realized the game was up in 2019 (the next election was not due until 2022 under the FTPA).

        When a party leader’s time is up it is up, the only other outcome is defeat at the ballot box, Best time to oust a failing lead is mid term, it allows their successor time to put repair the damage from the car crash(es) etc!

        Reply
        1. Peter2
          November 24, 2021

          Knees?
          You get more odd with every post.

          Reply
  24. Christine
    November 23, 2021

    So the English only have to pay the first £83k towards their care. Yet in Scotland this has been free for years. Let that sink in! Yet again the English pay when others get it free subsidised out of general taxation. Where is the levelling up? It doesn’t exist and won’t do until Scotland gets it’s so called independence and sells its soul to the EU.

    Reply
    1. Fedupsoutherner
      November 23, 2021

      It can’t come soon enough.

      Reply
    2. Mark B
      November 24, 2021

      Welcome aboard, Christine. 🙂

      The sooner they gain independence the sooner we will.

      Reply
  25. Christine
    November 23, 2021

    All these NHS changes will provide is more box ticking by more overpaid clerical staff. A friend of mine orders NHS hearing aids, she has a very low spend limit, to avoid seeking the required authority from a manager two ranks above she has to fill out a separate request form for each item which adds more work load but less than seeking the approval required by going over her limit and it also cuts down delay. It is this type of nonsense that needs stamping out. Reform from the bottom up not the top down. Ask the staff for their suggestions to improve the system. They know their jobs, use their expertise. Look at best practise from well run authorities.

    Reply
  26. a-tracy
    November 23, 2021

    How much is your government paying the big hotel chain for a room for each migrant and three meals and drinks per day? Seven years no deportation but within a day you knew the bomber was from Iraq he had submitted false name claims, been rejected 3 times but was still here in the UK.

    Then you say you can’t afford Social care. Thankfully I have had no relatives requiring social care homes, we cared for my Nan in her own home to the end and hired people to help. How can Scotland pay for Social Care? There is a couple across from my parents the ambulance is being called regularly but they won’t go into a care/residential home because no-one will take them together? Why on earth can’t some care homes take couples in a shared room with a double or twin beds? There is usually one of the couple that is stronger than the other and would help a little with company and basic care, feeding and helping with drinks.

    Reply
  27. Nota#
    November 23, 2021

    There is that weird bit again. The UK Parliament, the UK Government debating NHS England again. Of course that means the Cabinet minister for Health only being the Health Minister for England you given the same standing and wages as Ministers for the whole of the UK .

    I suppose that also means the MP’s for the other Countries in the UK get to debate and vote on something that doesn’t affect them.

    Reply
  28. Nota#
    November 23, 2021

    Sir John, as you have alluded to recently this is another area were UK taxpayer money is just ‘given’ to bodies and in this case a large proportion of private businesses without any accountability or expected responsibility being applied.

    Either a Minister is in charge and calling the shots or taxpayer funding should not be there. How can a voter in a democratic Country hand over money without the expectation of a return, the right through the HoC to call them to account and the right to withdraw the support.

    Reply
  29. Bryan Harris
    November 23, 2021

    Very valid concerns.

    Huge amounts of money has already been allocated to these new boards, and it is very doubtful that they will be 100% effective from day-1 — On the contrary we should expect major problems as the new over-paid managers get to grips with the daily requirements, while care homes will struggle just to keep running and do not need any further issues.

    I’d like to know what is going to happen when the health minister sacks 70,000 staff in the new year – I don’t imagine he has put any contingency plans in place to avoid total chaos?

    As happens with so much with this government, so keen to put the horse behind the cart, they try to make things happen by going about it in the most illogical manner. We didn’t need new levels of NHS management, all we required was a little more effective planning from the existing ones – for them to do their jobs.

    Talking about horses and carts, net-zero is a primary example of how the government is denying us a decent living standard while the technology they talk about as a replacement for what works now is totally non-existent.

    Like the planning for net-zero will turn our country into a cultural desert, if the NHS survives it will become a grandiose white elephant.

    Reply
    1. Mark B
      November 24, 2021

      Deck chairs and Titanic spring to mind.

      Maybe that is what I should have put first and that way I would have not got stuck in moderation.

      Reply
  30. a-tracy
    November 23, 2021

    “In 2020, there were 490,326 people living in care homes in the United Kingdom.” Statista
    “In 2020, over 418 thousand people were living in care homes in England.”

    I can’t see a breakdown of how many are in the four types of care homes:
    Care homes,
    Care homes inc Dementia care,
    Nursing homes,
    Dual-registered care homes.
    “7 May 2021 — There are about 17,600 care homes in the UK. Around 70 per cent of care homes are residential settings, while nursing homes make up 30 per cent” source carehome.co.uk
    This is 4% of the over 65 population. source mha.
    There are now over 15.5 million people aged 60 or over, making up 23% of the UK population. There are now 3.2 million people aged 80 or over, and almost 600,000 of these are aged 90 or over.

    Cue Andy for some ageist hate speech but most of us care about our elderly relatives a vast majority obviously care for their relatives themselves with only 4% in care homes.

    Reply
    1. No Longer Anonymous
      November 23, 2021

      And many of us care for parents for years and years, right up until the point that we can’t anymore and there is the need for specialised treatments because – you know – medicines will keep people in the most appalling state alive for a very long while.

      Children were meant to repay their parents but often elderly care can go on a lot lot longer than child rearing nowadays – living to age 100 is becoming more normal.

      Reply
  31. John Miller
    November 23, 2021

    I get confused with the idea that society should have a whip round to pay for the care of an elderly person so that their inheritors get rich.

    Reply
    1. alan jutson
      November 23, 2021

      The argument John is perhaps why some get this at the States/taxpayer expense having perhaps spent all of their earnings living life to the full, and others who have been perhaps been rather more prudent, have to completely self fund with no contribution from the State/taxpayer at all.
      I am all for families taking care of their own elderly relatives and parents for as long as sensible/possible, but there does come time when that is simply not possible, due to the amount of time and care required, which would means the career has to then give up work themselves in an attempt to do so.

      Why should some get state aid and other not in their time of need, when they have both paid into the same system ?

      Reply
    2. Micky Taking
      November 23, 2021

      try and explain to people far north of say Watford, that the house worth perhaps £100k that their parents saved and mortgaged all their lives expecting to leave for inheritors, will be forcibly taken. Good luck with that.

      Reply
      1. alan jutson
        November 24, 2021

        MT

        No problem at all, because exactly the same house in London would cost 5 times that amount, which is an expense those in the North have not had to find out of their earnings, when National wage scale rates mean they earn the same.

        Reply
    3. Nottingham Lad Himself
      November 24, 2021

      The way that this works is that the heirs of someone with 8.3 million get 99% of it, but those of someone with £83,000 get nothing.

      Labour had a fairer idea, but it was screamed down as a “Death Tax” by the right wing media and commenters like many here.

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        November 25, 2021

        The few people with £8.3 million would just pay for their own care bills.
        The state wouldn’t be required to step in and help.
        Your story is invalid NHL

        Reply
        1. Nottingham Lad Himself
          November 25, 2021

          They would generally pay what they were required to pay, like anyone else.

          Reply
          1. Peter2
            November 25, 2021

            Rubbish they would use private care homes, private carers and nurses.

          2. Nottingham Lad Himself
            November 25, 2021

            Some might, and then they would pay what they were required to pay for that, as I said.

            But whatever, this is just yet another lame and desperate attempt by P2 at diverting from the point of a post.

  32. alan jutson
    November 23, 2021

    Any change to Social care needs to be simple and fair to all.

    So how about this solution.
    If we agree that all medical treatment should be free at the point of use under the NHS, then that simply means board and lodging need to be found in a caring environment.
    Why not simply take all of the State pension/Local Authority benefits (less an agreed percentage amount for personal expenditure) that people currently get from the state for living at home, in exchange for care home fees being paid in full by the State.
    If you are being fed, watered, kept warm, with some social entertainment and staff on hand 24 hours a day, with no overheads, then surely no one would mind all State Benefits being taken for such care would they ?
    Why would you need any state benefits, when your cost of living is zero.
    In addition your personal tax allowance for earnings (investments, private pensions etc) should also be zero, so you pay the standard tax rates on any income at all, thus private pension income and all other investments are taxed at the going rate you would normally pay after your normal yearly personal tax allowance has been taken into account.
    Yes I have had parents in Care homes before anyone asks.
    It seems to me stupid to expect a State pension, and then also expect to live in a care home at no cost !

    Reply There is also the cost of social care as well as free NHS services and board and lodging costs.

    Reply
    1. alan jutson
      November 23, 2021

      Solution above, still not as good a deal as the illegal immigrants currently get (given they have never paid into the system for anything), but far better and more fair than existing arrangements.

      Reply
      1. alan jutson
        November 23, 2021

        Clearly my suggested solution still held in moderation !

        Reply
    2. alan jutson
      November 23, 2021

      Reply -Reply

      That is exactly my point, and that is the same cost if you self fund or not, so I do not understand your argument or reasoning. Indeed self funders pay more for their board and lodging than those who are funded by the state due to underpayment of fees by the state.
      All treatment cost is paid for/covered by the NHS, in a Nursing home or not.
      The social care, lodging cost is the extra cost element in a nursing home, so I suggest the residents State pension goes towards covering that cost.
      Not everyone will go into a nursing home, (indeed the percentage is quite low) so the State should be able to amortise that cost/risk by reclaiming their pension, they would also gain more of the residents retained capital when they eventually pass away through inheritance tax, although that’s another topic for argument.

      Reply
  33. Lynn
    November 23, 2021

    I watched the PM yesterday in pure astonishment. He seems to be having some sort of breakdown. If anybody needs social care, I’m afraid it is the PM.
    We can’t go on like this!

    Reply
    1. Bill B.
      November 23, 2021

      Be careful what you wish for. Do you want Gove in charge?

      Reply
      1. glen cullen
        November 23, 2021

        Even the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions – Dr Thérèse Coffey MP, who I didn’t know was in the cabinet until 10 mins ago, would do a better job then Boris…..I’d forgot how weak our cabinet was

        Reply
    2. Micky Taking
      November 23, 2021

      Just following a pattern long established around the world….leaders don’t lead, they mumble, make mistakes, cause pain for the population, those around them quietly shake heads, and sometimes whisper ‘so sad’….to one another but sit on hands.

      Reply
    3. alan jutson
      November 23, 2021

      Lynn

      He does not seem to be the same man since he “recovered” from Covid, probably went back to work far too quickly, unfortunately others where losing their heads whilst he was ill, hence his probable reason to return.

      Reply
  34. Peter
    November 23, 2021

    ‘My concern is too much time and resource might go into reorganisation when we need it to be pushed to the front line to provide the extra treatments and care needed by the large influx of patients.’

    Not only will time and resource go into reorganisation but there will be no transparency or accountability to the tax payer. It will be a huge black hole and it will perpetuate the practice of well paid – but unnecessary – positions for those with good connections.

    There is also a new drive to hide things from the general public by exempting vast swathes of bureaucracy from the Freedom of Information provisions.

    Reply
  35. glen cullen
    November 23, 2021

    It is now generally excepted that everything that this government does will turn into a disaster….I can feel it in my bones, this government has lost its way
    In trying to please everyone this government isn’t pleasing the voters that got them into power

    Reply
  36. acorn
    November 23, 2021

    Competition is out, collaboration is in. There is a diagram of the system courtesy of the Kings Fund at https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/audio-video/integrated-care-systems-health-and-care-bill#&gid=1&pid=1

    It appears that so many people are going to be collaborating, that decision making will make the last few days bun-fight over the COP 26 agreement, look like a church picnic.

    “Will the Bill enable ministers to interfere in the day-to-day running of the NHS? Short answer
    Yes, the Bill would give the Secretary of State sweeping powers both to intervene earlier in decisions about changes to local services and to direct NHS England.” https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/health-and-care-bill-key-questions#will-the-bill-enable-ministers-to-interfere-in-the-running-of-the-nhs

    Reply
  37. No Longer Anonymous
    November 23, 2021

    Care home bills seem to charge a paying resident to cover the the costs of non paying residents too. This is iniquitous.

    Reply
    1. Nottingham Lad Himself
      November 23, 2021

      It is.

      Reply
    2. Micky Taking
      November 23, 2021

      not seem – -they do !

      Reply
  38. paul
    November 23, 2021

    Just another con job to make sure all the money that goes in is wasted.

    Reply
  39. Kenneth
    November 23, 2021

    It seems to me that the civil service – in nearly all departments – is our greatest concern.

    Politicians make policy but the the civil service just does it’s own thing anyway, making democracy increasingly redundant.

    The civil service may have overtaken the BBC in becoming the main power in the UK, with Parliament trailing in third place.

    Calling for reform of the NHS, social care or any other public activity is pointless if they just end up doing what they want to do.

    Reply
    1. No Longer Anonymous
      November 23, 2021

      MPs and Ministers are pointless then.

      Reply
  40. X-Tory
    November 23, 2021

    On social care, my view is that the healthcare should be free to the patient (just as with all other medical care) but carehome residents should pay board and lodging. The cost of this should be NO MORE than the pension. If the cost is more than the pension then obviously either the pension is too low or the cost is too high. The government should be looking at how costs can be cut – for instance by obliging student nurses to spend a year of their course working in a carehome, or by exempting carehomes from costs like council tax, or electricity and gas bills.

    Basically, what is required is bold, imaginative, original thinking to cut costs rather than making the old and frail use up their life savings. And, if any extra government spending is required, this should be found by cutting the extravagant foreign aid bill. It is immoral and treacherous for the British government to give away British taxpayers’ money to foreigners when we do not have enough to look after our own people here at home.

    Reply
  41. Original Richard
    November 23, 2021

    “For many years there has been cross party support for the proposition that all frail elderly people should get their health care free as part of the NHS pledge, but should pay for their own board and lodging where they can afford to do so. It has meant that where someone moves into a Care home leaving their old home empty it is usual for it to be sold and for them to pay for their hotel costs at the Care Home from their own resources.”

    I think this remains a fair system.

    Also because it does allow the children of elderly people to house their parents if they wish to eliminate their board and lodging costs and at the same time does not leave houses empty and unavailable for re-use.

    Perhaps we simply need an arrangement whereby the hotel costs of a care home are paid for from the IHT?

    Reply
  42. X-Tory
    November 23, 2021

    On the topical issue of Boris’s much ridiculed Peppa Pig peroration, I wouldn’t have minded him referring to this company if it wasn’t for his deceitfulness. He said the company “is worth at least £6 billion to this country, and counting”. Err, NO. The company was sold in 2019 (for just under £2.8bn) and it is now owned by the US company Hasbro. So while this was, indeed, a British success story originally, as in so many other cases it is no longer “this country” that is benefitting. Perhaps Boris should have talked about this asset-stripping of the British economy instead.

    Another, even more heart-breaking example of this raping of our economy is YASA. You may not have heard of them, but they are a fantastic electric motor manufacturer, founded in Oxford, with a brilliant and revolutionary new design, which has been used by all the best high-performance cars, as well as for power generation in the marine and aerospace sectors. A marvellous British success story then, just perfect for the new electric era, and an example of the sort of company that Boris should be lauding to the stars. Except for the fact that in July this year YASA Ltd was bought up by Mercedes-Benz, and they have now moved much of the manufacturing to Germany. Perhaps you could ask your friend Kwasi Kwarteng why he has allowed this betrayal of Britain. Is he too stupid to understand the importance of this company (and its IP) or just a traitor who doesn’t care?

    Reply
    1. Mark B
      November 24, 2021

      The Spivs in the City must be fed.

      Reply
  43. rose
    November 23, 2021

    The point is, people have been selling their houses since the eighties at least. Why is it suddenly a problem now? Because nursing homes are charging self funders more than they should, in order to subsidise the non paying residents councils aren’t paying enough for. That is what should have been sorted out, by Hunt, long ago, then we would not be in this mess. But of course nursing homes don’t come under the NHS but under Councils.

    Reply
    1. Shirley M
      November 23, 2021

      Meanwhile, board and lodging (plus much more) for illegal immigrants is free, compliments of the taxpayer. 4 star lodgings. No less will do.

      Reply
    2. hefner
      November 23, 2021

      Andrew Lansley by describing the Dilnot report as a ‘basis for engagement’ in July 2011 put a break on the project. When the Care Act 2014 (originally starting to be discussed in Parliament in May 2013) finally introduced in May 2014 the principle of a cap, it planned its implementation for April 2016.
      And by that time the Government was preoccupied by other things.
      So was it all Hunt’s fault?

      Reply
    3. Micky Taking
      November 23, 2021

      exactly ! as one who has been bitten.

      Reply
    4. No Longer Anonymous
      November 23, 2021

      +1

      For most people getting to the point where they have a house and a pension (the means) has meant a lifetime of deferred gratification, hard work, sensible planning and sacrifice.

      Reply
      1. Micky Taking
        November 24, 2021

        the messages from government are always ‘why bother’, and public voices saying’ spend and let the State look after me’ are heard more often.

        Reply
  44. Excalibur
    November 23, 2021

    What I find intolerable is the imposition of a penalty on the thrifty and careful. At a rime when one is forced to realise that life does not go on forever, the prudent are put at a disadvantage because they have saved for their old age. Get rid of some of the NHS administrators and use the huge savings for the benefit of those who need residential care.

    Reply
  45. forthurst
    November 23, 2021

    I see that Dame Kate Bingham having been assiduously reading my comments on JR’s website, is now re-iterating the fact that Politicians and Civil Servants without scientific knowledge or training are effectively uneducated morons however deeply they have studied the vapourings of Marx and Lenin or any other tripe taught in British universities in the field of the Arts. Furthermore the consequence of this situation is that the quality of governance in this country is dire. These buffoons waste our money by the bucket full whilst making a Peppa’s ear out of every situation with which they are confronted.

    The Chinese must be laughing their socks off when they read about Tory Party’s acquisition of a tank which is more dangerous to those inside it than those it’s supposed
    to oppose whilst they circle the globe in low orbit at hypersonic speed with a vehicle which could potentially strike anywhere on the planet with devastating force.

    Reply
  46. XY
    November 23, 2021

    Yes, this was cunningly messaged so that people thought the cap applied to all costs.

    The Conservative Party is doing a great job of alienating all of its core voters. It’s only doing ok on Brexit issues and that has the capacity to blow up at any moment, with some acceptance of alignment always possible.

    The overarching question to me is: how to get a small-c conservative government into power?

    Reply
  47. XY
    November 23, 2021

    Oh and – the real issue here is that they have established the concept of NI being paid by pensioners. We all know the thin-end of-the-wedge approach of governments, start small, establish the basis, then simply announce increases to the tax in future budgets.

    Shameful.

    Reply
  48. Mike Wilson
    November 23, 2021

    Off Topic – I see that French fishermen, aggrieved they have not been given a licence to over-fish our waters, are about to blockade the Channel ports and stop trade between us and France.

    GREAT NEWS! REJOICE! They will achieve what Boris has failed to achieve – we will, finally, leave the EU!

    Perhaps, at LONG LAST, our foolish politicians will realise that it really is best to be self sufficient in goods, energy and food. I am trying to think of anything I will miss. Nah, can’t think of a thing!

    Reply
    1. Nottingham Lad Himself
      November 24, 2021

      No, but you can’t think of much else either, can you?

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        November 25, 2021

        Says NHL who posts endlessly on brexit.

        Reply
  49. ukretired123
    November 23, 2021

    It was a mistake to fire Dominic Cummins who knew how to respect the Red Wall voters, deal with the blob civil service and encourage rebuilding the country via enterprise and low tax incentives like freeports.
    He should come back but Boris’ s ego and princess nut cannot see he would be the key to unlock common sense on this lost government.

    Reply
  50. will
    November 23, 2021

    Methinks the honourable member protests too much ‘ if he is is not sure like he say’s then he should speak out in the House rally support but if necessary resign the party – here i’m talking about a principled stand not a pretend lame excuse

    Reply
  51. Lindsay McDougall
    November 24, 2021

    There wasn’t and still isn’t any need whatsoever for central government to get directly involved in the provision of social care, and it was and is crazy to give the NHS extra power and responsibility. The NHS demonstrably cannot deliver a health service ofadequate quality.

    There is a simple alternative for which there is already provision in law. People are responsible for financing their own social care, either at home or in a care home. When they run out of money, they declare themselves to be paupers and their local authority is obliged to look after them. Wealthy areas can afford to finance this through Council Tax. Poorer areas may find it impractical to raise sufficient extra Council Tax and the State may make a grant to them for the purpose of supporting paupers. QED.

    Reply
  52. a-tracy
    November 24, 2021

    Have I understood this correctly?

    Someone up North that has never had the massive boost of house price gain with a 3 bed home worth £110,000 is only left with £30,000 but someone with a £500,000 home gets to keep £414,000? That doesn’t seem fair, and this is from someone that thinks if you want to protect your inheritance look after your parents yourself and pay for homecare.

    I wonder of the half a million in care homes what % are totally funded by the State, no assets?

    Reply
    1. Micky Taking
      November 24, 2021

      You have not read the avoided small print. The maximum of £86k is to cover lifelong use of certain personal services- assisting with mobility to the toilet, washing and dressing. The rest of care typically in a Care Home would be a charge for accommodation, food, power, heating , building services, staff training, entertainment, the balance of staff and management salaries…..get the picture?
      So that £414k will be grasped in a pair of very strong hands NHS / Social services personnel insisting your loved one cannot stay/return home, and must go to be supported in a Care Home.
      If the service user lives a decent while longer, the estate might have some small change left.

      Reply
  53. a-tracy
    November 25, 2021

    MT that will teach me a lesson for reading twitter headlines lol.

    That is the message that is striking through. The poor will pay the rich will not.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *