Conservatives run away from the Dementia Tax "Nothing has changed" says Theresa.

Joined
15 Nov 2005
Messages
88,805
Reaction score
6,658
Location
South
Country
Cook Islands
"Theresa May backs down on ‘dementia tax’ social care plans
Conservatives plan cap on total care costs after outcry on original manifesto pledge"


https://www.ft.com/content/4a2a842e-3ed9-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2

"Theresa May has dramatically rewritten her contentious “dementia tax” plans, announcing that she will put a cap on total care costs to protect homeowners from the risk of losing nearly all of their assets.

After three days of mounting political criticism of her social care reforms — a centrepiece of the Conservative party manifesto — Mrs May bowed to warnings from Tory candidates that it was hitting the party hard on the doorstep.

Mrs May, who has claimed to be providing “strong and stable” leadership, announced the U-turn in a campaign visit to Wales, saying that a consultation on the policy would include “an absolute limit on what people have to pay for their care costs”.

The prime minister faced torrid questioning, with one reporter suggesting she was “weak and wobbly” and another that unlike Margaret Thatcher “the lady is for turning”. An agitated Mrs May insisted: “Nothing has changed, nothing has changed.”


An unkind rumour suggests that Mrs May is developing Dementia, since she constantly repeats the same few meaningless words, having no connection to anything that is said to her.

 
Sponsored Links
strongandstable.jpg

https://www.indy100.com/article/gen...stable-my-arse-signs-up-across-london-7747081

18519932_211186999393619_9017329047790193117_n.jpg








DAR70QIXgAE7-ob.jpg








DAVRMsLXkAALLCP.jpg




Evening Standard comment: U-turn on social care is neither strong nor stable

"Just four days after the Conservative manifesto proposals on social care were announced, Theresa May has performed an astonishing U-turn. There will now be a cap on the total care costs that any one individual faces. The details are still sketchy but it is not encouraging that the original proposals were so badly thought through. "

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...re-is-neither-strong-nor-stable-a3545186.html
 
just for a laugh, only yesterday:

"Work and pensions secretary Damian Green was very clear about his party’s determination to stick to its controversial plans on social care.

Just to recap the BBC’s Andrew Marr asked him: “People hate this policy and it makes them very very nervous indeed. Is there any chance at all you are going to look at it again?”

Green replied: “No. What we said in the manifesto, to put that no in context, is that we have set out this policy, which we are not going to look at again.”


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/39990986


 
An unkind rumour suggests that Mrs May is developing Dementia, since she constantly repeats the same few meaningless words, having no connection to anything that is said to her.
Ahh that'll be the same dementia Corbyn's had for some time. You do realise he was a committed Eurosceptic for almost all his political life, before conveniently "forgetting" it all in an instant last June.
 
Sponsored Links
Read an article the other day on the rising care costs. Not sure which rag or who wrote it but it sounded good to me.
Introduce an reduced NHI charge to pensioners who can afford it. It would cover the increasing costs of care for the elderly. whilst at the same time remove the need for NHS/council charges on peoples estates. What do you think?
I'm all for it and I am probably in that group which would have to pay.
 
Another method would be to have a sort of insurance scheme, that we all pay into, in the expectation that many of us will be lucky enough not to make a big claim. You could contribute throughout your working life, out of your earnings, as quite likely your health will not deteriorate much until (unless) you get old, depending on your luck.

Unlike Anobium's suggestion, we might allow old people who are retired to maintain cover without making additional payments once they are aged, say, around 65 to 70, and we could allow children who have not yet started earning to have cover without charge.

We could make it an insurance scheme to cover the whole country, and call it "Country Insurance" or something like that, to show it was a National scheme.
 
Not very conservative though, is it?

Sounds more like some scheme that would have been dreamt up at the end of the war if Jeremy had been around then.
 
Like the Christians, Jews and Moslems, and the atheists, I see the benefits of living in a society where those in need are helped by the more fortunate.

I believe Mormons are expected to contribute 10%, but I think I can do a bit better. I'd be willing to contribute, oooh, to pluck a figure from the air, round about 12% of my earnings to such a scheme. I'd be comforted to think that if I was in need of help, I'd be entitled to receive it.

Wouldn't you?
 
I would - but people won't like it, esp as 10% is actually really high. Think of the hoo-ha that the idea of raising national insurance caused. Come to think of it, isn't care something national insurance should cover?
 
We could make it an insurance scheme to cover the whole country, and call it "Country Insurance" or something like that, to show it was a National scheme.

We could call it "National Insurance" with a 12% rate.

What do you think I currently pay in National Insurance?
 
I would - but people won't like it, esp as 10% is actually really high. Think of the hoo-ha that the idea of raising national or having your house insurance caused. Come to think of it, isn't care something national insurance should cover?
There around 12.5 million pensioners, say half of them pay £40 per month in a new NHI contribution that will raise around 3 billion pa. Who would'nt if given the chance pay that on the off chance of covering the cost of long term care, against having your house being sold to cover the costs. ?
 
I would - but people won't like it, esp as 10% is actually really high. Think of the hoo-ha that the idea of raising national insurance caused. Come to think of it, isn't care something national insurance should cover?
Yes but this would only apply to current well off pensioners, why should the younger generation be expected to support the older generation who because of advancements in science are living longer, they the current employed would in turn under this scheme would also pay contributions towards health care when they retire.
When the welfare system was set up by Beveridge nobody expected the age of expectancy to be what it is now.
 
Last edited:
didn't Theresa say she was in favour of hunting with hounds?

that should get rid of them.

And cut down on fuel payments. A couple of harsh winters will work wonders.

if Jeremy C/H unt continues with his plan to crush the NHS, that will reduce the number of chronically sick.

 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Back
Top