Social Care Service

[motorbiking]

I'm not totally against Burnham's call for a social care service, as we have ended up in a world where old age'd care costs thousands a week and local authorities are spending a fortune placing the elderly into care homes that charge upwards of £75k per year. However the previous government looked at a social care cap which I think is a better solution, perhaps linking that to a fee to buy in.

There are two problems here:
- the Cost is huge, there is a question on whether the state can provide it more cheaply for those needing funding.
- Lots of people deliberately dispose of their assets to qualify, while others burn down their assets to pay, while getting the same care. That doesn't feel right.

 

[Mottie]

Mrs Motties mum is spending @£75k a year for her care whilst some people in the same place are getting it for free. It’s being paid for out her pensions, life savings and the interest from those savings. Okay, there’s an argument there but what I think should be done as a minimum, is to allow care costs to be offset against the bloody tax she pays on her pensions and the interest on her savings.

 

[Highway Man]

- Lots of people deliberately dispose of their assets to qualify, while others burn down their assets to pay, while getting the same care. That doesn't feel right.

Lena is a nurse in the community and sees this an awful lot, she deals with both NHS patients through social services and also those who are private. A lot of these people who are obtaining the social services care who could afford to pay are transferring money around their families in order to avoid paying. Some of these family members want nothing to do with the ones who are transferring the money to them other than to take the money. It is very common.

 

[motorbiking]

Mrs Motties mum is spending @£75k a year for her care whilst some people in the same place are getting it for free. It’s being paid for out her pensions, life savings and the interest from those savings. Okay, there’s an argument there but what I think should be done as a minimum, is to allow care costs to be offset against the bloody tax she pays on her pensions and the interest on her savings.

My Mum is in the same boat and as a 40% tax payer with savings, she is now going to be hit with Rachel's 2% savings tax. Her care costs are around 90k+ from memory as she had a stroke a few years ago and can't walk. It 100% should be tax deductible.

 

[Mottie]

Lena is a nurse in the community and sees this an awful lot, she deals with both NHS patients through social services and also those who are private. A lot of these people who are obtaining the social services care who could afford to pay are transferring money around their families in order to avoid paying. Some of these family members want nothing to do with the ones who are transferring the money to them other than to take the money. It is very common.

Mrs Mottie and her sister have POA over their mum and they keep strict records of everything they spend on her behalf.

 

[Highway Man]

Mrs Mottie and her sister have POA over their mum and they keep strict records of everything they spend on her behalf.

That is the sensible way everything is then traceable.

 

[ellal]

Mrs Motties mum is spending @£75k a year for her care whilst some people in the same place are getting it for free. It’s being paid for out her pensions, life savings and the interest from those savings. Okay, there’s an argument there but what I think should be done as a minimum, is to allow care costs to be offset against the bloody tax she pays on her pensions and the interest on her savings.

Have to agree with you there...

Because being in a family where three elder siblings are now of that age the differences are enormous...

One has already paid close on to £300k and rising, another about £100k (now down to the limit), and the other paid nothing at all...

And all due to so called accrued 'assets' (or lack of) which take no account of one's life journey...

There is of course no totally fair system, but if there was a better lifetime taxation system whereby people get the benefits of having a fairer chance of success that would to some extent mitigate end of life expenses...

For example making education free across the board instead of lumping many with a lifetime of debt which limits their ability to 'pay their way'...

And should Burnham's pledge to effectively bring back the value of what were essentially HND's/HNC's that would be a start to recognising potential...

Plenty more examples where a dash for short term gains hinders a better outcome for the majority, so probably won't happen as cross party support requires joined up thinking and long term agreements!

 

[Highway Man]

That is the sensible way everything is then traceable.

Once you have reached having £23,250 left in the bank, you can then get social services to pay for the care and by you keeping records of expenditure, you can prove the care fees you have already spent so there would be no investigations and horrible questions.

 

[Mottie]

Once you have reached having £23,250 left in the bank, you can then get social services to pay for the care and by you keeping records of expenditure, you can prove the care fees you have already spent so there would be no investigations and horrible questions.

That’s all well and good and because she was self funding, she (or rather Mrs Mottie and her sister as their mum was in no fit state) were able to look at a few and choose the one they thought best served her needs. Allowing for inflation, she can probably afford another 8 years or so there but their worry is that if she lives to a point where she gets to below the £23.25k barrier, the LA may move her from there into a cheaper but less suitable home for her needs.

 

[Highway Man]

That’s all well and good and because she was self funding, she (or rather Mrs Mottie and her sister as their mum was in no fit state) were able to look at a few and choose the one they thought best served her needs. Allowing for inflation, she can probably afford another 8 years or so there but their worry is that if she lives to a point where she gets to below the £23.25k barrier, the LA may move her from there into a cheaper but less suitable home for her needs.

Unfortunately they probably will. But they would look at how much you have already spent and a possibility that they would leave her be but it is unlikely as social services costs are cheaper. Once they take over it sort of makes sense to move her to a cheaper care facility, it isn't fair after the money that you have spent but Lena say's that is the normal case.

 

[Brigadier]

Mrs Motties mum is spending @£75k a year for her care whilst some people in the same place are getting it for free. It’s being paid for out her pensions, life savings and the interest from those savings. Okay, there’s an argument there but what I think should be done as a minimum, is to allow care costs to be offset against the bloody tax she pays on her pensions and the interest on her savings.

You don't see the irony that the inflated fees (which are paid for from your mum 's pension) are often fattening up your own pension, do you?

 

[Mottie]

You don't see the irony that the inflated fees (which are paid for from your mum 's pension) are often fattening up your own pension, do you?

I don’t understand what you are trying to say. As far as I know, my pension which I am already getting so cannot be 'fattened up' at all, has nothing to do with the fees paid to a private care home in an area I have no connection with. In any case, I’m not mentioning anything about inflated fees - round the clock care is not cheap in the first place. I can see that my council tax is paying for those in my local authority that have made no provision for themselves though, or for those that have made provision and have hidden it!

 

[motorbiking]

Getting for free, what others pay for is wrong. If I buy a car, the price I pay reflects what I get, if I buy a holiday the same. Even medical care, even if its the same private offers it differently. There is no incentive.

 

[ellal]

Getting for free, what others pay for is wrong. If I buy a car, the price I pay reflects what I get, if I buy a holiday the same. Even medical care, even if its the same private offers it differently. There is no incentive.

But what is your view of those who cannot afford it for whatever reason?

Do you want them to go without because you can't understand that many are unable to attain the lifestyle that you purport to have?

Or that you believe that there is no possibility that you unlike any other human being can't suffer any form of personal disaster that affects the way that a person can look after themselves?

I have yet to see a system that is perfect, but if you choose to turn your back on a societal approach then you are poorer for that!

 

[Brigadier]

I don’t understand what you are trying to say. As far as I know, my pension which I am already getting so cannot be 'fattened up' at all, has nothing to do with the fees paid to a private care home in an area I have no connection with. In any case, I’m not mentioning anything about inflated fees - round the clock care is not cheap in the first place. I can see that my council tax is paying for those in my local authority that have made no provision for themselves though, or for those that have made provision and have hidden it!

You're pension fund has grown because of investments made by its managers.

Some of which will likely have been into lucrative areas like social care.


And yes, I know that round the clock care is expensive, but I'm also not so naive as to think the private providers aren't making a healthy return.