Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Cogs

Ni Rises To Cover Care Homes

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...es-1731247.html

The aim would be to end the current "postcode lottery" over the services provided to the elderly in their own homes, and to avoid the need for old people to sell their property to fund expensive care home fees. Ministers describe these issues as "unfinished business" from when the modern welfare state was set up by Labour after the Second World War.

The Government will set out its initial thinking in a Green Paper on long-term care next week.

An expansion of social care is emerging as one of the "big ideas" for a fourth term to be included in Labour's general election manifesto.

Under the plans, social care would not be nationalised, but tailored to individual needs through different providers.

It would be brought into line with the NHS, so that people would know what support to expect, ending the anxiety and uncertainty caused by the existing patchwork system. No decisions have been made, and ministers want a big national debate first.

The options include funding a basic national standard of care through a one-off payment by individuals of about £12,000 – either when someone retires or taken out of the estate when they die. However the option most favoured by ministers at present is an "earmarked" rise in National Insurance contributions, similar to the one Gordon Brown introduced as Chancellor in 2002 to boost the health budget, which won public support.

<_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow

they could save some money on admin

by taking all our income and just give us a fiver pocket money a week

thats about all i will have left anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again this is all about inter generational wealth transfer, and no I don't mean from the elderly.

I've said this before, but I have much more respect for the war generation who know the meaning of saving and who made the country great. Its the parasitic boomers that this policy is aimed at.

Think about it! When their elderly parents go into a home, if the state pays and the elderly person's house is not sold, who benefits eventually? Oh yes, of course the thieving baby boomers.

So young people in their 20s struggling to buy a house, will now not only have to pay the cost of the care for today's generation of elderly, but will also find that property that may have come to market will either be held off, rented out or attempt to be sold for an exorbitant price.

This is the same thing as Goldman Sachs. They aren't actually money making geniuses, they are just effectively manipulating (or could it be scamming) the system in their favour. AIG should have been allowed to go under, and it would have taken a lot of investment banks with it. But of course by propping up AIG, those said banks received their credit default payouts when other loans when bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are looking at every family having to cough up £24,000 for their parent(s) to get in home health care...

Unfortunately the palliative care system is very expensive, and this up front fee will not come close to coving the real costs involved.

There will be a popular revolt against the growing ranks of unproductive oldies pillaging and dictating to the working class, and government will have to bend to the will of the real taxpayers, equating to more top up fee's and fewer medical visitations.

Only when we start seeing a big die off of the boomer generation and the transfer of wealth to the generations behind do we have a hope in hell of maintaining a decent health service.

Britain's health care is already stretched thin and is too expensive thanks the insane levels of bureaucracy, just imagine what it will be like in a decade if we don't introduce some fair measures immediately.

Me, I would immediately introduce two tier health care in Britain. Force those with the ability and wealth to pay for it, and leave the NHS for those genuinely in need.

Edited by cashinmattress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've said this before, but I have much more respect for the war generation who know the meaning of saving and who made the country great. Its the parasitic boomers that this policy is aimed at.

+1

but don't forget this is in the Independent which is even more of alooney left paper than the Guardian.

The younger generations will simply revolt - labour will be out for a generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is simple desperate electioneering - and since labour are unlikely to win the next electin not a big problem, yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me, I would immediately introduce two tier health care in Britain. Force those with the ability and wealth to pay for it, and leave the NHS for those genuinely in need.

Isn't that what we already have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Think about it! When their elderly parents go into a home, if the state pays and the elderly person's house is not sold, who benefits eventually? Oh yes, of course the thieving baby boomers.

The government are the ones that benefit most.

If the property is not sold and the procedes used, then when the owner eventually dies guess who takes 40% of the procedes as inheritance tax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard granny farms charge somewhere around £800 a week for a resident and this will be paid for by the state if they dont have the money themself. The resident will have most of their pension taken away if this is the case.

I know a few people who work in these privately run places and it is just a never ending horror story. Running constantly short staffed resulting in poor attention and care levels for the residents. Sh!t wages for the staff including the professional staff resulting in massive staff turnover rates. Constant visits from the regulatory body (the Care Commission in Scotland) who are as much use as a chocolate fireguard and cant seem to address any of the problems they are meant to. All the while, the owners of these homes are making off like bandits. The public sector homes are supposedly run better with better wages for staff, lowever staff turnover rates resulting in more carers and a better quality of care provision.

Whilst i can appreciate costs are high for residents who require 24hour nursing care, many do not yet are still charged the eye wateringly high fees. I guess this is to be expected when a stay-at-home carer does not even get minimum wage from the govt and many of the selfish generation just want their parents out of the way so they can live their so important lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The government are the ones that benefit most.

If the property is not sold and the procedes used, then when the owner eventually dies guess who takes 40% of the procedes as inheritance tax?

Er i don't think that's right.

Firstly most estates avoid inheritance tax. Secondly not having to pay out 100% of something, is better than not receiving 40% of something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Er i don't think that's right.

Firstly most estates avoid inheritance tax. Secondly not having to pay out 100% of something, is better than not receiving 40% of something.

I don't know, many people of that age own homes bought a long time ago and their estates are subject to tax.

The government don't pay 100% of the care. The family pay for care from the sale of the house. The government lose 40% in potential inheritance tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No decisions have been made, and ministers want a big national debate first.

Sums up 12 years of labour.

Mandelson/Brown vote buying - like everything else they announce.

The real debate should be what is the point of paying taxes and national insurance for 40-50 years when you get next to nothing back to show for it.

Scrap income taxes/national insurance, put a cap on house lending to prevent the money flowing into land prices and see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ship them off to India where a care home will cost 1/10th the price.

Don't even tell them its India, just say it was global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ship them off to India where a care home will cost 1/10th the price.

Don't even tell them its India, just say it was global warming.

actually made me lol. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   288 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.