Paying for the care system

[enfieldspares]

7 hours ago, Surfer said:

Does anyone have an idea where the money we were sending out to the EU has gone? You know the one on the side of the tour bus the figure eludes me but I am sure it was enough to cover a lot of services 

regards 

This. What was it Johnson and Farage spaffed and shouted? £350m a week..."Let's fund the NHS instead?"

[Vince Green]

11 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

This. What was it Johnson and Farage spaffed and shouted? £350m a week..."Let's fund the NHS instead?"

And Jounsom has done it, under his time as prime minister he has increased funding by way more than £359 million a week.

Funding for health services in England comes from the Department for Health and Social Care's budget. Planned spending for the Department of Health and Social Care in England was £212.1 billion in 2020/21, up from £150.4 billion in 2019/20.24 Mar 2021

[12gauge82]

4 hours ago, Vince Green said:

And Jounsom has done it, under his time as prime minister he has increased funding by way more than £359 million a week.

Funding for health services in England comes from the Department for Health and Social Care's budget. Planned spending for the Department of Health and Social Care in England was £212.1 billion in 2020/21, up from £150.4 billion in 2019/20.24 Mar 2021

Some people don't like letting the truth get in the way of a good story. 

I'm still waiting for all those who promised doom and chaos due to brexit to admit they were totally wrong. Good job I haven't held my breath! 

[Lloyd90]

16 hours ago, discobob said:

Had chance to read that link I posted above Lloyd?? Do you still stand by what you posted??

just interested to know what your thoughts are on it buddy

Hello Bob buddy, 

If you look back at what OOWEE asked, you very specifically replied to the following part of his question: 

“What happens if one of a couple has to go in a home?” 

 

As it very clearly says in the link you kindly posted: 

 

Will my home have to be included in the means test?

In some situations, your home won't be taken into account in the means test. There are a few circumstances where this applies:

If you need short-term or temporary care in a care home, your home won't be in the means test.

If your care home is permanent, it won't be counted if it's still occupied by:

• your partner or former partner, unless they are estranged from you
• your estranged or divorced partner IF they are also a lone parent
• a relative who is aged 60 or over
• a relative who is disabled
• a child of yours aged under 18

 

 

So your answer to OOWEE’s question, where you stated that a charge would be placed against the persons home to be repaid when they die is in-fact incorrect. 
 

If one of a couple goes into a home, the home is not included in the means test because the other person in that couple still lives there. 
 

The family home would only be included in a means test when the final member of the couple goes into a home, leaving the home unoccupied (which was not the question asked). 

 

 

[Surfer]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

Some people don't like letting the truth get in the way of a good story. 

I'm still waiting for all those who promised doom and chaos due to brexit to admit they were totally wrong. Good job I haven't held my breath! 

Lol that’s ace 

[garjo]

The reality is that the vast majority of people will continue to pay for care even with the £86k cap. Those with long term are needs are more likely to reach the cap, the average length of time people stay in a residential care home is around 2 years. 

[discobob]

6 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Hello Bob buddy, 

If you look back at what OOWEE asked, you very specifically replied to the following part of his question: 

“What happens if one of a couple has to go in a home?” 

 

As it very clearly says in the link you kindly posted: 

 

Will my home have to be included in the means test?

In some situations, your home won't be taken into account in the means test. There are a few circumstances where this applies:

If you need short-term or temporary care in a care home, your home won't be in the means test.

If your care home is permanent, it won't be counted if it's still occupied by:

• your partner or former partner, unless they are estranged from you
• your estranged or divorced partner IF they are also a lone parent
• a relative who is aged 60 or over
• a relative who is disabled
• a child of yours aged under 18

 

 

So your answer to OOWEE’s question, where you stated that a charge would be placed against the persons home to be repaid when they die is in-fact incorrect. 
 

If one of a couple goes into a home, the home is not included in the means test because the other person in that couple still lives there. 
 

The family home would only be included in a means test when the final member of the couple goes into a home, leaving the home unoccupied (which was not the question asked). 

 

 

I took this from it - looks like a contradiction??

We jointly own our home – how will it be assessed?

In the means test the local council must take into account joint owners who own different amounts of the property. They shouldn’t assume that joint owners have equal shares, although you may have to provide evidence to prove this.

Check the information above to see if your home should be ignored in the means test.

[Lloyd90]

58 minutes ago, discobob said:

I took this from it - looks like a contradiction??

We jointly own our home – how will it be assessed?

In the means test the local council must take into account joint owners who own different amounts of the property. They shouldn’t assume that joint owners have equal shares, although you may have to provide evidence to prove this.

Check the information above to see if your home should be ignored in the means test.

Looks pretty clear to me. 
 

It is quite apparent that that section is talking about couple who own their home as ‘tenants in common’, as opposed to joint tenants. 
 

“They shouldn’t assume that joint owners have equal shares”. 
 

The key point is the last sentence: 

“Check the information above to see if your home should be ignored in the means test”. 
 

As we have already established: (from the information above):   

 

If your care home is permanent, it won't be counted if it's still occupied by:

• your partner or former partner, unless they are estranged from you
• your estranged or divorced partner IF they are also a lone parent
• a relative who is aged 60 or over
• a relative who is disabled
• a child of yours aged under 18

 

 

 

Which part appears to be a contradiction? 
 

 

[garjo]

7 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Looks pretty clear to me. 
 

It is quite apparent that that section is talking about couple who own their home as ‘tenants in common’, as opposed to joint tenants. 
 

“They shouldn’t assume that joint owners have equal shares”. 
 

The key point is the last sentence: 

“Check the information above to see if your home should be ignored in the means test”. 
 

As we have already established: (from the information above):   

 

 

If your care home is permanent, it won't be counted if it's still occupied by:

• your partner or former partner, unless they are estranged from you
• your estranged or divorced partner IF they are also a lone parent
• a relative who is aged 60 or over
• a relative who is disabled
• a child of yours aged under 18

 

 

 

Which part appears to be a contradiction? 
 

 

Yes , you're right the property is disregarded where it is occupied by a spouse, partner etc and/or in some circumstances a close relative

[Bigbob]

We all agree the present system is unworkable too few contributing to the system where to many are getting  freebies

How long before we go down the American route Do you have insurance ??  Nope dou you have cash to pay for it ?

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, Bigbob said:

We all agree the present system is unworkable too few contributing to the system where to many are getting  freebies

How long before we go down the American route Do you have insurance ??  Nope dou you have cash to pay for it ?

To be honest, for most working class people, I'm not suggesting the American system, but something more like the German, Italian or French, they'd probably get far better health care than they do now if it did. There's simply too many spongers in the system, why should people who've always payed there tax and worked hard all their life be denied medical appointments and operations in a timely manner, while those who've contributed little or nothing at all get the same? 

[armsid]

What happens if you have had equity release? who gets first dibs Perhaps a system where the family is paid to care for their parents thus saving the system money?

[Lloyd90]

3 hours ago, armsid said:

What happens if you have had equity release? who gets first dibs Perhaps a system where the family is paid to care for their parents thus saving the system money?

First dibs on what? The money has been cashed out. 
 

Equity release however can be quite dodgy some of the companies are very dodgy. 
 

Also not many people know when they are going to have a sudden fall or decline and need to go into a home, so someone can cash it in, and then the money runs out. Some people equity release and then give the money to family. 
 

If someone equity releases after they have care needs to avoid paying care fees then the LA can take then to court for deprivation of assets and they / the family could be forced to repay the money or the LA could refuse to pay for their care (although unlikely). 
 

The best thing you could do is good sound financial planning, and plans for what care you want as you get older and more unable to meet your own needs. 
 

The vast majority of people I came across had no plans and then were rushing about in a time of crisis when it was all too late. 

[ratchers]

5 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

To be honest, for most working class people, I'm not suggesting the American system, but something more like the German, Italian or French, they'd probably get far better health care than they do now if it did. There's simply too many spongers in the system, why should people who've always payed there tax and worked hard all their life be denied medical appointments and operations in a timely manner, while those who've contributed little or nothing at all get the same? 

This.^^^^^

They all seem to smoke and drink,have the latest mobiles and tv's and are down the pub!

[Lloyd90]

3 hours ago, ratchers said:

This.^^^^^

They all seem to smoke and drink,have the latest mobiles and tv's and are down the pub!

If only we could all achieve such heights of achievement … 👀

[Saltings]

covid frit the **** heads and druggies     ane    was eerily quiet  people who thought they were sick and needed a pat on the head and a smarty didnt go     and tie everything up on a weekend       the crook ones went to hospital as not time wasters and needed help    got help       we could charge **** heads   for fighting  sprained ankles etc     self inflicted pay         pay nothing in to the system pay         if you dont contribute      you pay   

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 hours ago, Saltings said:

covid frit the **** heads and druggies     ane    was eerily quiet  people who thought they were sick and needed a pat on the head and a smarty didnt go     and tie everything up on a weekend       the crook ones went to hospital as not time wasters and needed help    got help       we could charge **** heads   for fighting  sprained ankles etc     self inflicted pay         pay nothing in to the system pay         if you dont contribute      you pay   

Yes I think you make a good point, the NHS and in particular the A and E departments were left alone by all the time wasters.

[12gauge82]

7 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

If only we could all achieve such heights of achievement … 👀

I don't believe he's suggesting he is envying their lives, he's sumply questioning, as do I, why everyone else who works should pay for those who refuse to. 

[Newbie to this]

 

8 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

If only we could all achieve such heights of achievement … 👀

 

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't believe he's suggesting he is envying their lives, he's sumply questioning, as do I, why everyone else who works should pay for those who refuse to. 

 

11 hours ago, ratchers said:

This.^^^^^

They all seem to smoke and drink,have the latest mobiles and tv's and are down the pub!

Absolutely, nothing he has listed is essential to live, these are all luxuries (well some) and as such should be unattainable for those on benefits.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Newbie to this

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't believe he's suggesting he is envying their lives, he's sumply questioning, as do I, why everyone else who works should pay for those who refuse to. 

Agreed.

Nowhere else in nature, economics or any scientific field do you get something for nothing.

The problem is, that we have lost our steel and stomach for tough decisions and measures.

You only need to look on social media these days; someone posts that they have a rat infestation and are looking for advice - then follows the cries to phone the local animal sanctuary, email Chris Packham, humane traps for release at the bottom of the road, all the way through to poems and crystals and anyone who suggests something like poison is shouted down as being heartless, cruel and an unfeeling murderer.

So, at what point do we say ‘no’. No you haven’t contributed enough to take out all that you want to take?

[Lloyd90]

54 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

 

Absolutely, nothing he has listed is essential to live, these are all luxuries (well some) and as such should be unattainable for those on benefits.

You can buy a second hand iPhone of an older model for about £60+. 
 

You can buy a pretty good TV for less than £200. 

A couple pints down the pub and a pack of fags is what? £30 - £50 a week? 

 

Yes, those items are perhaps not essential to their survival, but I would guarantee if they didn’t have any sense of normality in their lives they’d most likely be heavily impacted by depression and end up costing us even more, or the real reality is, there would be a much higher crime rate. 

 
 

What should we expect people on benefits to do? There’s a lot of criticism for the current system without offering much alternative. 
 

What would you have them do? Sit in a bare flat with 4 blank walls staring at them all day whilst they are only limited to buying bare essentials for survival? Sounds pretty bleak. 
 

 

 

The current system IMO is pretty much a formal of social control, they are given just enough to have a taste of normality, enough to be able to watch TV so they can join in with the rest of society about what happened on Love Island last night, so they can smoke fags (which cuts down their life expectancy) and have a couple pints to dull their minds. 
 

Look at parts of America or Africa where they don’t have any benefits, armed home invasions, car jackings and all sorts. 
 

The current system should undoubtedly be replaced with a system that rewards people into work, and makes it better off for them to work, currently if someone who is struggling would be on even worse money if they got a job it is a joke, but you can hardly blame them in that situation. 
 

If my employer asked me to have a new job where I do significantly more for less money I know what I would tell them! 

[12gauge82]

44 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

You can buy a second hand iPhone of an older model for about £60+. 
 

You can buy a pretty good TV for less than £200. 

A couple pints down the pub and a pack of fags is what? £30 - £50 a week? 

 

Yes, those items are perhaps not essential to their survival, but I would guarantee if they didn’t have any sense of normality in their lives they’d most likely be heavily impacted by depression and end up costing us even more, or the real reality is, there would be a much higher crime rate. 

 
 

What should we expect people on benefits to do? There’s a lot of criticism for the current system without offering much alternative. 
 

What would you have them do? Sit in a bare flat with 4 blank walls staring at them all day whilst they are only limited to buying bare essentials for survival? Sounds pretty bleak. 
 

 

 

The current system IMO is pretty much a formal of social control, they are given just enough to have a taste of normality, enough to be able to watch TV so they can join in with the rest of society about what happened on Love Island last night, so they can smoke fags (which cuts down their life expectancy) and have a couple pints to dull their minds. 
 

Look at parts of America or Africa where they don’t have any benefits, armed home invasions, car jackings and all sorts. 
 

The current system should undoubtedly be replaced with a system that rewards people into work, and makes it better off for them to work, currently if someone who is struggling would be on even worse money if they got a job it is a joke, but you can hardly blame them in that situation. 
 

If my employer asked me to have a new job where I do significantly more for less money I know what I would tell them! 

What you seem to be missing is there are many people in this country who work full time but live on the bread line themselves. Why should people pay for people who refuse to work? I don't think anyone begrudges giving someone a leg up when they fall on hard times, I certainly don't. What does is people perfectly capable of working who simply refuse, they've sat on benefits their whole life and have no intention of doing a day's work, I absolutely would cut their benefits and if they commit crime, build more prisons and lock them up,thats a scheme I would pay for. We could also lock up more criminals and remove them from society while we're at it. What's not to like? 

[Newbie to this]

I'd also go as far as no money should change hands, there should be some sort of token system, and those tokens can only be spent on essentials.

As for expecting them to sit in a flat staring at walls, no, I expect those who are able, to go and get a job. All I am hearing is we have a shortage of people to do jobs, all the while we have 9.5 million of working age, on benefits.

We don't need to import workers, we need to get our lazy into work.

All the while they are not struggling to get by and don't see any shame in what they do, this will never change.

These things don't have to be difficult, they are just made difficult by all the luvvies and those not wishing to lose votes.

Same with the boat illegals. If you enter this country illegally, you will never be able to stay, oh and definitely no benefits.

 

[12gauge82]

23 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I'd also go as far as no money should change hands, there should be some sort of token system, and those tokens can only be spent on essentials.

As for expecting them to sit in a flat staring at walls, no, I expect those who are able, to go and get a job. All I am hearing is we have a shortage of people to do jobs, all the while we have 9.5 million of working age, on benefits.

We don't need to import workers, we need to get our lazy into work.

All the while they are not struggling to get by and don't see any shame in what they do, this will never change.

These things don't have to be difficult, they are just made difficult by all the luvvies and those not wishing to lose votes.

Same with the boat illegals. If you enter this country illegally, you will never be able to stay, oh and definitely no benefits.

 

Absolutely spot on. 

[Lloyd90]

4 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

What you seem to be missing is there are many people in this country who work full time but live on the bread line themselves. Why should people pay for people who refuse to work? I don't think anyone begrudges giving someone a leg up when they fall on hard times, I certainly don't. What does is people perfectly capable of working who simply refuse, they've sat on benefits their whole life and have no intention of doing a day's work, I absolutely would cut their benefits and if they commit crime, build more prisons and lock them up,thats a scheme I would pay for. We could also lock up more criminals and remove them from society while we're at it. What's not to like? 

I’m not missing anything as I’ve lived on the bread line during it all growing up (with both parents who worked pretty much 7 days a week) and never had a helping hand off the Government or anyone else.
 

I have had to be on benefits (job seekers) after a medical condition totally shattered my plans to join the RAF and serve, and I couldn’t find anything else.  
 

In my family area (In Wales) there weren’t loads of jobs, mostly a load of low paid jobs with odd hours here and there, in the end I pieced together 3 different jobs in-order to bring home under £200 a week. 
 

 

After a few years I managed to get a half decent job, but still chose to go back into education, and almost 10 years later I have a degree and a good job / income.   
 

 

 

 

There are obvious issues with benefit claimants who see it as a lifestyle. 
 

Despite many people shouting similar to yourself, no one has managed to solve the issue yet have they? 🤷‍♂️
 

If it’s as simple as some on here make out why hasn’t it been sorted? 
 

No point blaming liberals or what not, The Tories currently have an 80 seat lead …