Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Saving For a Space Ship

Panorama On Sunday: The National Homes Swindle Update

Recommended Posts

Sorry if its been mentioned before, but this Sunday there's an

update on the Panorama tv program that revealed a scandal of thousands of families forced to sell home to pay for care that should have been free that was on in March 06

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/listings/progr...5_4223_36379_40

Panorama

Sun 23 Jul, 10:15 pm - 10:55 pm 40mins

The NHS National Homes Swindle - A Growing Scandal:

In March, Panorama revealed that thousands of elderly people had been forced, unlawfully, to sell their homes to pay for their care in a nursing home - health care which the NHS should have paid for itself. It provoked a record response, with thousands of emails and phone calls from viewers, and this programme follows up their stories and reports on a scandal that

From last program:-

HPC thread discussion on the original program

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...amp;hl=panorama

Viewers stories - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4777296.stm

Outline / press release http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressrele.../panorama.shtml

Social care chiefs urge rethink

The Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has issued a response to Panorama's The National Homes Swindle programme.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4785412.stm

Edited by Saving For a Space Ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't see the problem here. If you're sitting on a substantial financial asset then too damn right, you should yield up some of your profit instead of expecting the young, who are already borrowing up to the hilt to pay for your capital gain, to pay more tax to let you keep your gains and be looked after in a nursing home.

To quote one of the comments on the BBC forum:

I am outraged, not by the NHS, but by the emotive nonsense in this programme. What the producers of this programme don't seem to realise is that if the people concerned don't sell their homes, then we will all need to pay higher taxes.

If you want to stop the NHS requiring people to finance their own long-term care as much as possible, then you are in favour of a retrogressive tax from the poor to the rich. There are tremendous pressures on the NHS and there will be even greater pressures in the future with medical inflation exceeding normal inflation and with shortages of medical staff, without this mollycoddling of wealthy people added to the burden.

Gerard, London

Edited by othello

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. Tehy've already paid for the treatment in their lifetime of tax and NI contributions. Forcing people with money to pay their own way is effectively punishing them for being prudent with their earnings instead of squandering it on iPods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't see the problem here. If you're sitting on a substantial financial asset then too damn right, you should yield up some of your profit instead of expecting the young, who are already borrowing up to the hilt to pay for your capital gain, to pay more tax to let you keep your gains and be looked after in a nursing home.

To quote one of the comments on the BBC forum:

I am outraged, not by the NHS, but by the emotive nonsense in this programme. What the producers of this programme don't seem to realise is that if the people concerned don't sell their homes, then we will all need to pay higher taxes.

If you want to stop the NHS requiring people to finance their own long-term care as much as possible, then you are in favour of a retrogressive tax from the poor to the rich. There are tremendous pressures on the NHS and there will be even greater pressures in the future with medical inflation exceeding normal inflation and with shortages of medical staff, without this mollycoddling of wealthy people added to the burden.

Gerard, London

A good post othello......totally concur with you.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. Tehy've already paid for the treatment in their lifetime of tax and NI contributions. Forcing people with money to pay their own way is effectively punishing them for being prudent with their earnings instead of squandering it on iPods.

With respect, that argument is rubbish. And it is trotted out by so many people. It boils down to this: "They've already paid for the treatment in their lifetime of tax and NI contributions" - o really, have they? How do you know? Unless you are actually going to add up the contributions and get a figure, and then add up the cost of the treatment, you cannot possibly make a coherent argument that would satisfy anyone older than about four years of age, that they have paid for it already. What is the point of discussing things as important as these issues, if you are not actually going to do the calculus of what has been paid, and what the costs are? I've heard people who paid a few pence a week NI claiming that that made them entitled to all sorts of stuff "because I've paid my dues". This is an imbecilic argument. How can a few pence a week fund a £15K operation, or a £30K a year course of drugs, or £60K a year care home costs? This is just silly.

As for your point about punishing people who are prudent and favouring those who squandered, the way to address that is to look at lifetime earnings, and lifetime unavoidable costs. The difference is what was left for luxury like iPods. Lifetime unavoidable costs are things like paying for periods of illness in earlier life, paying to bring up children, paying for periods of training for public service jobs. If this calculation was done, you'd be able to see how much people had spent on non necessities, and if they had squandered their earnings, they would be entitled to less help in old age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, that argument is rubbish. And it is trotted out by so many people. It boils down to this: "They've already paid for the treatment in their lifetime of tax and NI contributions" - o really, have they? How do you know? Unless you are actually going to add up the contributions and get a figure, and then add up the cost of the treatment, you cannot possibly make a coherent argument that would satisfy anyone older than about four years of age, that they have paid for it already. What is the point of discussing things as important as these issues, if you are not actually going to do the calculus of what has been paid, and what the costs are? I've heard people who paid a few pence a week NI claiming that that made them entitled to all sorts of stuff "because I've paid my dues". This is an imbecilic argument. How can a few pence a week fund a £15K operation, or a £30K a year course of drugs, or £60K a year care home costs? This is just silly.

As for your point about punishing people who are prudent and favouring those who squandered, the way to address that is to look at lifetime earnings, and lifetime unavoidable costs. The difference is what was left for luxury like iPods. Lifetime unavoidable costs are things like paying for periods of illness in earlier life, paying to bring up children, paying for periods of training for public service jobs. If this calculation was done, you'd be able to see how much people had spent on non necessities, and if they had squandered their earnings, they would be entitled to less help in old age.

And for those who make a career move to have children young & live on benefits all their lives, & will receive free healthcare as required...............

Those who stay on the dole 'cos it ain't worth working.........

Those who merit subsidised social housing when young with children, who then refuse to move out when they can afford better to allow someone more deserving to live there.........

Those who refuse to save a penny for retirement because then they will lose extra state benefit,

I suppose you applaud these people!

Does it not occur to you that there are those who choose to be supported by those who are decent enough to try to pay their share.

Why do you assume that every person owning a house is super wealthy, had it easy all their lives & it is about time they paid for their easy life by having their house used to provide care.

The NHS system is founded on the principle that regardless of social standing everybody receives like healthcare this is paid for by varying contributions according to earning potential during your working life.

It was never intended at any point in anybodys life time to have to pay for that care.

If that concept is now unaffordable then either the contribution rate should be changed, or the NHS disbanded in favour of personal health care plans.

There are already plans to penalise those who save by denying the second state pension.

If we keep along these lines everybody will benefit more by benefit claiming, but who is supposed to pay for benefits.

Why just penalise the elderly, why not just have every single person over a certain wage bracket pay for their own healthcare at any age, even though they are expected to contribute to the NHS scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to decide exactly what the NHS does and doesn't pay for. Then when we've done that, what it is paying for has to be covered by tax. The problem is, getting everyone to make their fair contribution, rather than the current system where so many healthy & able citizens are avoiding contributing their share, yet taking all the benefits.

What is unfair at the moment is that those who have been prudent through their lives have to pay for something who the person in the next bed does not. Why should one save for retirement and save for a home when if you don't bother to work hard for anything the government will give it to you for nothing anyway.

All I can say is, the government should consider itself lucky that HPI has made these houses worth enough to cover the nursing home bills in the first place. Imagine if we were still at 1995 prices - that would leave a whole lot more pensioners below the means testing threshold and the government would be left to pick up the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't see the problem here. If you're sitting on a substantial financial asset then too damn right, you should yield up some of your profit instead of expecting the young, who are already borrowing up to the hilt to pay for your capital gain, to pay more tax to let you keep your gains and be looked after in a nursing home.

To quote one of the comments on the BBC forum:

I am outraged, not by the NHS, but by the emotive nonsense in this programme. What the producers of this programme don't seem to realise is that if the people concerned don't sell their homes, then we will all need to pay higher taxes.

If you want to stop the NHS requiring people to finance their own long-term care as much as possible, then you are in favour of a retrogressive tax from the poor to the rich. There are tremendous pressures on the NHS and there will be even greater pressures in the future with medical inflation exceeding normal inflation and with shortages of medical staff, without this mollycoddling of wealthy people added to the burden.

Gerard, London

Why just the elderly, there are 'rich' young as well.

You are suggesting here a NHS system where those who can afford to contribute receive no benefit,

but those who do not contribute receive all the benefit.

How very fair minded!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why just the elderly, there are 'rich' young as well.

You are suggesting here a NHS system where those who can afford to contribute receive no benefit,

but those who do not contribute receive all the benefit.

How very fair minded!

My mum knew a lovely old lady (died last year aged 92) who, after her husband died, was swindled out of every penny she had by an unscrupulous “lawyer”. Unfortunately although she was quite intelligent, this lady had married young and as her husband had always taken care of the money side of things she was also quite naïve. Although the crook was imprisoned, she never saw any of her money again.

This lady said she was utterly amazed at the subsequent standard of living and care she was given by the state – far better than she and her husband had had on their carefully saved for pensions and she (cynically) used to say that “if you have saved for your retirement you are poor, but if you have nothing you are very wealthy indeed!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't see the problem here. If you're sitting on a substantial financial asset then too damn right, you should yield up some of your profit instead of expecting the young, who are already borrowing up to the hilt to pay for your capital gain, to pay more tax to let you keep your gains and be looked after in a nursing home.

To quote one of the comments on the BBC forum:

I am outraged, not by the NHS, but by the emotive nonsense in this programme. What the producers of this programme don't seem to realise is that if the people concerned don't sell their homes, then we will all need to pay higher taxes.

If you want to stop the NHS requiring people to finance their own long-term care as much as possible, then you are in favour of a retrogressive tax from the poor to the rich. There are tremendous pressures on the NHS and there will be even greater pressures in the future with medical inflation exceeding normal inflation and with shortages of medical staff, without this mollycoddling of wealthy people added to the burden.

Gerard, London

Othello, when you are an old man/woman please kill yourself when you retire so that my children do not have to pay unfair taxes to look after your sorry ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Othello, when you are an old man/woman please kill yourself when you retire so that my children do not have to pay unfair taxes to look after your sorry ass.

We won't have to, because by the time we retire, if we're ever actually able to do so, the welfare state will be dead and buried. That's the really annoying part about this whining by old farts who believe that 'their house is their pension' but then refuse to sell it to pay for their retirement costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cletus VanDamme

We won't have to, because by the time we retire, if we're ever actually able to do so, the welfare state will be dead and buried. That's the really annoying part about this whining by old farts who believe that 'their house is their pension' but then refuse to sell it to pay for their retirement costs.

I'm inclined to agree. If people now see their home as an investment, what better investment than your own health and wellbeing? People seem angry that their home is considered along with all their other assets when determining ability to pay for long-term care, yet are quite happy for it to be considered an asset when they want to MEW for that new car or holiday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue on the surface is quite simple:

If the government are suposed to pay for care for the elderly [which is supposedly defined] then they should do just that - if they want to change the situation then they should say so - and bring the issue into the open and to the electorate [ and risk losing/alienating voters].

This NuLab government is too chicken to do anything but anything vaguely controversial.

Under the surface the issue is more complex - in most other countries the eldery are looked after by their families - where families have the luxury of being able to get by on one wage and have spare capacity at home.

Here - it is difficult to get by on one wage [for most families] - therefore the taxes collected I assume should go some way to pay for elderly health care - should it not!

HAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the USA they sell insurance policies to cover long term health care, do we not have those available here ?

I know so many people who are relying on their inheritence as a vehicle to pay off those IO mortgages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alright Jack

I disagree. Tehy've already paid for the treatment in their lifetime of tax and NI contributions. Forcing people with money to pay their own way is effectively punishing them for being prudent with their earnings instead of squandering it on iPods.

That isn't correct. We need to be very specific about what we mean over this topic because it is an accident waiting to happen.

The current retirees did not pay for their own retirement during their working life. They infact paid for their parents' retirement. We are paying for this current retired generations' retirement. You need to understand how crucial this differentiation is because the demographics have changed in a VERY meaningful way. The current social security system doesn't hold up anymore, the stresses are already too obvious as this thread demonstrates in part.

As the boomers begin to head into retirement soon two things will happen.

1) Stock Market will crash as they pull out of their retirement packages and funds.

2) Government will be forced to monetise its unbridgable fiscal chasm (the net of further increasing taxes and trying reducing spending will pall in comparison to the net obligation)

Many boomers will suffer terribly in contrast to their expectations. It is very sad.

In short, stay out of stocks in the coming few years (I am not a trader, I'm sure trading oportunities will exist as opposed to buy and hold), stay out of bonds, and stay out of cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anyway that states what the NHS actually covers?

I agree in that some people here argue they should not have to sell their home to cover costs, but has their contributions over their life actually covered the costs of free accomodation and care when they need help. To be honest I doubt it, therefore selling their assets to pay for care is not wrong at all. I guess they could get their families to look after them (like they did in previous generations), but in the 21st century, no one wants that burden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't correct. We need to be very specific about what we mean over this topic because it is an accident waiting to happen.

The current retirees did not pay for their own retirement during their working life. They infact paid for their parents' retirement. We are paying for this current retired generations' retirement. You need to understand how crucial this differentiation is because the demographics have changed in a VERY meaningful way. The current social security system doesn't hold up anymore, the stresses are already too obvious as this thread demonstrates in part.

In other words it is a pyramid investment scheme, always requiring far more young people at the bottom to pay for the old people at the top. This is also one of the reasons we are being sold mass immigration as a solution to the current problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any one missed the prog, it can be viewed on broadband at link on right hand top corner of page here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/default.stm

Sickening stuff, At the beginning, the commentator clearly stated that it was the law that the elderly were entitled to free heathcare. The whole bureaucratic

slithering out of paying for it was stomach churning IMO.

Edited by Saving For a Space Ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One element of the programme I found particularly distasteful was the interview with Ivan Lewis - the Labour Health Minister - who stated it would be completely impractical and unaffordable for the government to provide free social (as well as nursing) care to the elderly. Yet this is exactly what is being provided in one part of the UK (with English taxpayers money of course) - SCOTLAND!!

All old people in Scotland get their care bills paid for and therefore don't need to sell their houses to pay for it - typical Nu Labour hypocrisy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. Tehy've already paid for the treatment in their lifetime of tax and NI contributions. Forcing people with money to pay their own way is effectively punishing them for being prudent with their earnings instead of squandering it on iPods.

I dont think its true that OAPs have 'invested' anything like enough to pay the real cost of modern health care. The unfortunate truth is there is a lack of discrimination between essential care and non-essential care. Viagra being the best example, Im sure there are others. I dont agree that OAPs should be forced to sell their homes for care but do believe that inheritance taxes should be related to the cost of care provided. It would be easy to record the cost of NHS care and to align taxes accordingly.

As for viagra I can only see a droopy argument in favor of it!

Edited by bpw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.