Brown promises free home personal care

EdInvestor

Errata wrote: »

Wearing my man on the Clapham omnibus hat, the Tory plan sounds far more tempting than the Labour one.

Well it's certainly cheaper and it seems to cover all the costs, whereas the Labour 20k fee would not cover food and accom, only personal care, and thus big costs would still be incurred and no doubt many houses would still have to be sold.Of course Labour has already pointed out that much of the Tory plan's costs will land on general taxation and where exaxctly will the money come from?

Errata

I think many people have been shouting 'show us the money' after Brown's conference speech.
I understand the Tory plan will be voluntary. Currently only 5% of those over 65 are in residential care and only 1/3 of them are self funding. The numbers are small, it's a gamble, the political parties seem to have entered a bidding war.

moneylover

Towards the very end of my life I might prefer to be in residential care rather than dependent on someone getting me up,, coming in to give me lunch and then waiting for tea and bed.... perhaps not many visitors because I have outlived my contempories and family not nearby or very busy with own lives. I have just seen it all with my mum in law who struggled on in her own house till she died because she didnt want to go into care (believed all the horror stories) and even had to wear incontinence pads during the day because she couldnt walk to toilet unaided. I contrast that with the happiness of a friends mum who elected to sell her house and go into care, a nice residential home where she has made plenty of friends and likes her carers very much.
I would like the option of an insurance policy for £8000 and still be able to keep my home and go into care. However the insurance scheme will doubtless only allow you to go into care if you get to the point where you are a danger to yourself in your own home or need nursing care.
And , so far as Labour and their free critical care policy is concerned- critical is what they really, really mean - the bar is so high you practiccally have to be dead to qualify for critical care probably. You do at the moment anyway under the present local authority run means tested arrangements
So most people with a home will probably still pay for care or have to sell their home if they go into care whichever party wins the next election.

margaretclare

I agree with much that moneylover says about 'towards the very end of my life'.....

I should certainly not like to be in bed until someone comes to get me up, feed me, wash me etc and then reverse the process at the other end of the day. From what I've seen, read and heard some may not be 'got up' until late morning, approaching lunchtime and then may be put back anywhere from 4 pm onwards.

And , so far as Labour and their free critical care policy is concerned- critical is what they really, really mean - the bar is so high you practically have to be dead to qualify for critical care probably. You do at the moment anyway under the present local authority run means tested arrangements.

Politicians, GB in particular, like to 'pull a rabbit out of a hat' by making a surprise announcement which sounds good at first glance. Look what he did at the end of a Budget speech in relation to the 10p tax band, wrong-footing the Opposition who hadn't thought of it, and what a nightmare that turned out to be for many people.

Many people look set to lose AA but, because as you say, the bar is so high, they will gain nothing and won't have that extra payment to buy in help or pay for things that may help them, things of their own choice.

Rolandtheroadie

moonrakerz wrote: »

Here ?:
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/holyroodparliamentbuilding/Holyrood-in-500m-overspend.2837765.jp

Don't worry though - Gordon will make sure that the English will pick up the bill as usual. :rolleyes:

That articles 3 years old. And 510 mill in 7 years isnt that much (how much over was the Milleneum Dome? How much over is London 2012 already? Obviously the Scots Welsh and Northern Irish didnt/dont contribute to those i suppose. :rolleyes:

The freeze in council tax and cheaper prescriptions came after the article too.

Savvy_Sue

Errata wrote: »

but that has to be weighed against only 5% of older people needing residential care towards the end of their lives.

It always astonishes me that politicans rarely think of the law of unintended consequences.

ATM, only 5% of older people need residential care, and on average they only need it for 2 years. However, if they were GUARANTEED to have it FOR FREE* for AS LONG AS THEY NEEDED IT, wouldn't some older people choose residential care sooner rather than later? Perhaps quite a few more than 5%?

* OK, I know it's not free, I know there's an up front charge, but that's the way it's being spun.

Errata wrote: »

I understand the Tory plan will be voluntary. Currently only 5% of those over 65 are in residential care and only 1/3 of them are self funding. The numbers are small, it's a gamble, the political parties seem to have entered a bidding war.

And one they haven't really thought through.

moneylover wrote: »

I would like the option of an insurance policy for £8000 and still be able to keep my home and go into care. However the insurance scheme will doubtless only allow you to go into care if you get to the point where you are a danger to yourself in your own home or need nursing care.

This is a detail which has passed me by: so you won't actually be able to CHOOSE residential care if you don't actually NEED it? Clearly that would change the situation which immediately crossed my mind, but it would also IMO reduce the number of people prepared to take out such insurance. It would certainly affect my decision, when the time comes.

Errata

ATM, only 5% of older people need residential care, and on average they only need it for 2 years. However, if they were GUARANTEED to have it FOR FREE* for AS LONG AS THEY NEEDED IT, wouldn't some older people choose residential care sooner rather than later? Perhaps quite a few more than 5%?

As with everything, the devil will be in the detail !
Some might choose it sooner, some may do what they do now and wait until things have become completely unmanageable and have long passed the point when residential care became necessary. Perhaps those two groups may balance each other out ?

Savvy_Sue

Well, perhaps, but I know if this option had been available to my parents they would want to take up the free option sooner rather than later. FREE is GOOD, whether you need it or not, to them. And think of the bills they would save by not having to run their home.

It's a constant struggle to get them to pay for things which they could easily afford, and which would make life MUCH easier, if there is any free but hugely inconvenient option.

Errata

This is a big if. If the £8k is intended to cover the hotel costs, that leaves a big gap to be filled by state retirement pension, attendance allowance, private pension and ??????

In any event, Labour gives the option of a one off £22k in its green paper so it looks like both parties are on the same hymn sheet.

EdInvestor

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

ATM, only 5% of older people need residential care, and on average they only need it for 2 years. However, if they were GUARANTEED to have it FOR FREE* for AS LONG AS THEY NEEDED IT, wouldn't some older people choose residential care sooner rather than later? Perhaps quite a few more than 5%?

Well spotted Savvy Sue, the experts have also picked up on this 'uninteneded consequence' :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6257990/Elderly-could-be-forced-out-of-their-homes-under-Tory-policies-experts-warn.html