Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
5 October 2009
09:3929848I have an OAP client in Buckland Estate, incidentally, for whom such a solution would be ideal. Her son is actually my client, on her behalf. I have provided a solution but this scheme would have been better for her and him. The son could have paid the £8k when mum was 65 to protect his inheritance and ensure that his mum could have the care needed when needed. Win -win. Existing schemes are much more complex and often this complexity puts people off as a result.
The truth is that the rich wont bother with this scheme, they can afford £30k a year from capital/income or combination for the average 3 years care needed.
I see all kinds of people in my job, a few wealthy but most not, and this scheme is the best idea I have seen yet to deal with this problem for all kinds of people.
I expect there to be sophisticated savings schemes to be developed to help people save up for this though there are a great many who will be able to pay this from pension lump sums or ISA savings instead. I would also expect there to be 'easy' equity release schemes developed to fund this in a pain free way. I would not mind betting that there will be ways devised for all home owners to benefit wherever they live, whatever the value of their home, whatever income and whatever capital they have.
Those who have nothing when they retire will be in no different a position then than they are now. They will get their LTC paid for by the taxpayer as they do now.
No-one loses out on this voluntary scheme, no-one is worse off as a result, no taxpayers money is involved either. It is imaginitive and I just wish I had this option for clients years ago. What I do have are much more expensive options than this one, all of which will still be available (immediate care annuities and so on) for those who do not take advantage of the age 65 option.
Why are you so against choice and so against people being able to pass on their modest savings/investments and property to their children?
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
5 October 2009
12:3729853We have an aging population. In the UK there are now more than 6 million people over the age of 80 - that is 10% of the total population. The idea of extending the life span of the population to well beyond that expected 20 years ago is all well and good on paper - but in reality it has it's own drawbacks - somebody has to pay for it.
Obviously, as the human body ages it deteriorates and requires an ever increasing amount of "maintenance" to keep it going. This cost falls mostly to the NHS. Old age is all well and good - but the state, and taxpayer, can only subsidise that extended life to a certain extent. In other words "if you want to live forever then that's fine - but you're going to have to pay for it"
It may sound unfair and callous - but that's reality. People consider me cold hearted when we discuss this subject. In answer I give them the economic realities.
A typica example is Mrs OAP receives a pension of £250 per week including disability payments. She pays no council tax, free prescriptions, free chiropody, free dental care and spends in the region of 6 weeks per year in hospital.
Multiply that by 6 million and you see the dilemna.Those that can pay should and those that can't pay won't have to - thus affording all elderly citizens equal rights.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
5 October 2009
13:1629854That is exactly what this is all about Marek. It is an insurance based scheme to cover the costs of long term care and not about the State paying.
It provideds another option for people to those currently available.
It seems that you went off on one about this just because its a Conservative policy without properly looking at it and understanding it.
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
5 October 2009
14:3329855Still not convinced 1. That the most needy will not be able to afford it,
2.If you can't afford it what happens when all the nursing and care homes are taken up by people who want to get thier moneys worth.
3.If everyone pays and don't need it what a waste of money.
And how about the Referendum Barry even you don't seem to want to answer that one or are you waiting for clarification from D Cbefore you make up your mind,could have a long wait as I have never seen him bumble around a subject so much.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
5 October 2009
15:2029860JHG -
1/ The 'most needy' dont need it, they will get their care paid for as now.
2/ People either need the nursing care or not, provision is there regardless of this cover and will expand to meet market demand as we get an ever aging population (and yes there is a'market demand') this is just an alternative way of paying for it.
3/ That is the way insurance works John, dont you have life cover? Dont you have Buildings Insurance? How often have you claimed and I bet you hope you dont claim on life cover.
You seem to be suggesting that Governments should only have policies to help the very worse off and that frankly is nonsense.
As for the referendum, I am far from silent. I have posted on this elsewhere and will not repeat it yet again, find it and read it!
Tell me: are people being deliberately obtuse over this matter of long term care, or just not bothering to read and understand the explanations.
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
5 October 2009
15:3229864Not obtuse Barry we know that many many People cannot afford it and the same will happen with the private hospitals who will cream off from the rest for those who can't,the care homes for the ones that can afford it will cream off from the rest,once again a 2 state country,those who can afford and those who can't.
Yes I have Life cover and buildings and contents insurance,the difference from life insurance is that it will be paid out not to me but my family,thisnew health insurance means I only have a 20% chance of needing it and if I don't who gets it.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
5 October 2009
17:3029868JHG - there is 4 times the likelyhood that critical illness insurance will pay out than life assurance before the age of 65..... Please dont try to tell me about actuarial statistics on a subject that I deal with daily.
You are competely off track and seem to suggest that nothing should be done to help people keep their homes for their families to inherit. Given the poor level of pension provision in this country, thanks to Brown's policies, a lot of people will need this added (though normally quite small on the scale of things) boost to their capital.
You are not coming out with any sensible argument against this policy, its imaginitive, its violuntary, it is targetted at those who need this help most, it is at no cost to the taxpayer, it is socially beneficial and it helps ordinary families/beneficiaries. Win-win.
You dont have to do it if you dont want it, let those who will benefit do so.
Once again we see the ugly face of socialism, trying to deny people the right to pass on their property to their loved ones and look after themselves at the same time.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
5 October 2009
18:0129872barry
using phrases like "the ugly face of socialism" to defend criticism of new blue policies suggests that you have no real belief that the proposals will gain popularity with the electorate
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
5 October 2009
18:1029876What leads you to that conclusion Howard ?
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
5 October 2009
18:1529877Howard, why not address the actual arguments made rather than my expression of disgust at the left?
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
5 October 2009
18:2129879My problem with it is that it doesn't help the needy.Those people with houses left unoccupied whilst they are in care should contribute towards the cost but not on a voluntary basis as the Tories are advocating.
I fear it could create a two tier system within care homes.Thus reminding some of the bad old days of receiving free school dinners. Elderly people can be quite blunt when addressing each other and I can forsee problems where Mrs Wellington-Boote cries out "but I have paid to be here..she hasn't". Will the care homes be divided into fee paying and non fee paying establishments? Will care homes give priority to 'club members'? as they have paid.What happens if all the care homes are full of fee payers will the Tories build or adapt other places to house the non fee payers or will they just be left at home.?
It's all a bit up in the air at present and I suppose I haven't quite mind up my mind about the scheme yet. I will have to give it more serious consideration.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
5 October 2009
19:3029881Thanks Marek that was some of the points I was trying to raise.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
5 October 2009
21:1129882Marek and JHG - you clearly have no knowledge of the present system. All who have a home could benefit from this. Those who do not own a home do not need this. The needy in this instance are ordinary home owners who get caught out by the punishing rules unable to afford the present model of complex pre-payed for LTC insurance.
All care homes are paid for, those people who are not home owners have it paid by the local authority and are often in a bed next to someone who has had to sell their home, something they scrimped and saved for, to pay for their care.
It just offers a different, simpler and more affordable way to deal with the provision. I am involved professionally in these issues and I see all types of situations. Marek - it will not lead to two tier system any more than we have at present but, in fact will if anything, open up better care for more people.
You also have to understand that it is not the Tory way to run these things as a Government or to impose a load of restrictive rule but to keep it simple. Simple is always best. Set the policy, bring in enabling legislation to eliminate restrictive factors like tax issues, put in place a safety net for extreme situations and let the scheme take care of itself driven by the private sector.
I simply fail to see any down side at all. The only probelm here is JHG and Marek trying desperately to find fault with an idea just because it is Conservative. That says a lot about you and a lot more about the instincts of socialists. That demonstrates why I am a Tory.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,022
5 October 2009
21:3229886Well said Barry .If god forbid i had to go into care I would have to pay almost double the amount that someone who doesnt own a property pays and that is payed for by the state .Its a two tier system now .Those who have saved and looked after their own homes end up paying .Look at my post re Single Mothers and perhaps you willl see where Im coming from and why Im a Tory .
Im not rich and its hard enough to pay for repairs etc so having been a single mum for years I have little savings ,however my house would have to be sold under the present system.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
5 October 2009
22:1029887roger and barry
sloganising is not political argument and turns off the electorate.
roger said earlier that this coming election should be fought on policies, now defends aterm of abuse.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,698
5 October 2009
23:0629888Barry the down sides/unanswered questions are:
1. Limited take up making the insurance scheme non viable due to insufficient capital to cover costs
2. The "affordability trap" where people wish to take advantage of the proposed insurance but can only generate the premium by selling some/all of the equity in their house, potentially creating an unmanageable debt position or negating the point of the scheme.
3. Low take up leading to premiums for "new joiners" escalating beyond the rate of inflation, progressively making it less and less attractive and/or affordable.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
6 October 2009
01:5529890Barry
My wife is a Deputy Care Home Manager so I have some secondhand knowledge of the care system.
Firstly most UK Care Homes are run by foreign nationals.Their main aim is to make a profit. A care home I know stopped taking 'council paid' residents as they could charge 'private fee paying residents' more money for identical services.Hence the less fortunate where left in hospitals taking up valuable bed space until they could be found accommodation or in some cases returned home to die with hardly any care at all.
Another care home previously run as a charity and with an excellent reputation in cleanliness and care had to sell up and was purchased by overseas investors. The first thing that was implemented was a fresh contract for all staff resulting in a pay cut of nearly £150-200 pcm for qualified staff.They obviously had to resign,some with 15 years service or more at that care home, and find alternative employment.
New young unqualified care assistants were employed saving the company thousands of pounds a year in salaries but the standard of professional care dropped dramatically.The shift patterns were also altered and lengthened and care staff were also required to undertake cleaning duties normally carried out by domestic staff.Hence domestic were laid off thus resulting in more savings. The food bill was slashed by £200 per week so the standard of meals served was also affected.
Outings were cancelled and the caretaker with over 25 years dedicated service was put out to pasture.These savings and I use the term loosely were instigated in order to make the home more profitable but the standard of care dropped dramatically.
So please don't tell me I know nothing about the care home system I live with it everyday by proxy through my wife.When was the last time you stepped into a care home at meal times or in the evenings or helped load the elderly onto minibuses for a trip to the theatre etc?.
All the above changes were introduced to make a profit which is exactly what will happen under a Tory govt. but at the expense of the residents.
Don't be so naive, of course they will be a two tier system the privately run care homes whose members belong to the new Tory Club and the State run ones for those less fortunate.By making those persons with houses laying empty sell up to help towards the cost of their care will lessen the burden on the taxpayers(a common Tory doctrine) and allow the govt to release funds for those unable to pay therefore affording all oaps a decent standard of care in the winter years of their life.
I read one political commentator who said most elderly people save up for a rainy day and their house is their biggest asset.Well how big does a rainy day have to get...surely moving into a care home for the rest of your life is about as rainy as it gets.
On one hand the Tories are proposing take £25 per week off the 250,000 disabled people who are unable to work or support themselves whilst on the other hand if you own a million pound house you are only going to have to pay £8k to insure continous care for life so that you can pass on your wealth after you've snuffed it to family members without having to put anything back into society by way of taxes or contributions furthermore a change in the inheritance tax proposed by the Tories will also safeguard little Johnny from having to pay any tax in death duties either. Bloody typical.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
6 October 2009
07:2729894here here marek,nicly put i must say.conceravtives = profit before people.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
6 October 2009
07:5429900Marek, you miss the main point. paying for LTC is a serious probloem and this is a scheme that will help a lot of people pay for it without selling their homes. It might also enable a bigger take up of care in your own home as well, not just nursing homes. I hope you enjoyed your customary rant against profit but in the real world profit is essential.
Ross - I can assure you from the sharp end that this is a scheme that will sell. The present complex and expensive pre-paid care schemes are very problematical and have had a low take up, so much so that many products get pulled from the market. It is the expense and sheer complexity of them that is the problem.
A simple and straightforward scheme like this will fill the void.
I pointed out that a simple form of equity release could be developed just to fund such a scheme for those who dont have the savings. This does not create a debt trap such as you suggest and would help preserve a much higher percentage of a property value than having to sell the home to pay for care. Also many children would be willing to pay this £8,000 to help preserve their inheritance, it does not have to be paid for by the elderly person. Such children would tend to be in their 30's/40's when their parents are 65 and many that age have the means to raise this money, at least they should have if they have been even moderately sensible.
As I have said, I am at the sharp end of this professionally and can vouch that there is a lot of peope who would be grateful for such a scheme.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
6 October 2009
08:0229903barryw,profit has a place,as long as its reivested into that buisness and not to shareholders.