Paying for Care

EdInvestor

The problem is though that it's still going to impact on what you might call the "sandwich group", that is, the ones between the people with no savings or property who won't pay anything and the better off who can afford to self fund via immediate needs annuities without losing their home.

At least the appearance of a 12k cap on the amount you have to pay is better than losing your home, but as Margaretclare says these people will resent having to pay 12k when the next social layer down pays nothing, and in particular they are likely to reject paying if they don't need care in any case, which most people don't.

margaretclare

EdInvestor wrote: »

The problem is though that it's still going to impact on what you might call the "sandwich group", that is, the ones between the people with no savings or property who won't pay anything and the better off who can afford to self fund via immediate needs annuities without losing their home.

At least the appearance of a 12k cap on the amount you have to pay is better than losing your home, but as Margaretclare says these people will resent having to pay 12k when the next social layer down pays nothing, and in particular they are likely to reject paying if they don't need care in any case, which most people don't.

I wasn't saying that I would resent it if I paid it but others got it for free, which is another can of worms that frequently gets opened on sites like this. What I was saying was that I don't want to pay for something I may never receive. I have no objection at all to paying for it if I happen to be in the minority group, the 1 in 5, who do need full-time residential care, but I do not wish to pay it if I am in the majority group, 4 in 5, who don't. As I see it, even if I manage to live in my own home for the rest of my life I am likely to need to pay for help coming in - cleaning, gardening etc - so I don't want to have to pay this 'levy' on top of those costs.

bryanb

margaretclare wrote: »

What I was saying was that I don't want to pay for something I may never receive.

But that is the nature of insurance, bet you pay car/house insurance.

EdInvestor

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=487588&in_page_id=2&ct=5

Some comments on this Mail report - predictably the only person who likes the idea is the one whose relative is having to sell up to pay for care.

It amazes me how none of these people ever seem to know about immediate needs annuities, which in some cases would cut the costs of care very substantially..

Why are these policies not better known? Why is financial advice not offered to families when care of a relative is suggested?

monkeyspanner

Another aspect of this is the very variable at-home daily care provision by council social services. As this is not provided as a statutory requirement councils are at liberty to provide very little if they so choose.

If this could be standardised and included I would see this as a good step forward.

As only 1 in 5 require a care home placement this equates to £60k for each placement which seems a bit excessive and a way of making money on the arrangement. Is this because the Government intend to farm this system out to private insurers and they will want to see a decent profit margin? Sorry my cynical side is showing.

margaretclare

"But Downing Street believes most people would rather take part in the optional scheme than face the prospect of having to sell their homes."

I realise I'm probably in a minority, but I have never been able to see what is wrong with this.

Assuming one of us is left alone and needs full-time residential care, becomes one of the 1 in 5 in other words, he or she will not need our present home to live in, so why not sell it? It's a major asset and could be turned into cash if it's no longer needed to live in.

What to do with it otherwise? You can't just leave it to deteriorate - houses need to be lived in and to be maintained.

If one of us needs the full-time residential care while the other doesn't, he or she can still live in our present home and no question of it being sold over his/her head.

Errata

EdInvestor wrote: »

The problem is though that it's still going to impact on what you might call the "sandwich group", that is, the ones between the people with no savings or property who won't pay anything and the better off who can afford to self fund via immediate needs annuities without losing their home.

At least the appearance of a 12k cap on the amount you have to pay is better than losing your home, but as Margaretclare says these people will resent having to pay 12k when the next social layer down pays nothing, and in particular they are likely to reject paying if they don't need care in any case, which most people don't.

I agree that there will probably be a fair bit of resentment, but throughout life many people have, through their taxes, paid for the education for more children than they themselves have and paid for more healthcare provisions than they themselves have used.
I would like to see some flexibility, possibly through some form of insurance which people take out when they start work and pay into throughout their working lives, or the purchase of a care needs annuity when they reach 40 - although I'm not sure if this would be possible.
As I said, £12k isn't a spectacularly large some of money in today's terms.

EdInvestor

Perhaps the Government might like to increase the amount of tax free cash that can be taken out of pension funds to cover care fees? Increasinging it from 25% to 25%+ 12k say, might help.Then they could also increase the tax relief available for those on basic rate from the current 20% to say 25%, which would encourage people to take up a pension in the first place.

Errata

An interesting article on this with links to lots of other interesting articles http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/01/12/110185/adult-social-care-green-paper.html

EdInvestor

Rather than try to impose a levy on everyone perhaps it would be better to cap the cost to say 40-50k for those who do need it.