I have paid in to the system all my working life (from age 16), why should I have to pay twice ie buy a house to pay for care later? Either we have a NHS or we have private health care

yes but the system you have paid in for did not realise how long you would live and how much you would cost to keep alive after retiring.
You never paid into a fund for your care costs as their was no fund. You are asking people working now to pay additional tax for you.

The NHS has never paid for care it has paid for health there is a distinction. So we can have a national care scheme as well but, as above, it will cost a lot of money. There is no easy solution to this but I would go for means tested personally looking at your assets.

either way looks unfair.

Yeah, I must admit I'm struggling to see a positive in either side of the argument.

lets stop spending our money on other countries problems

???

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/UKExpenditure.svg

Edit – bugger, apparently I can't link to that image the normal way for some reason. Anyway, the myth of a big pile of cash that we can stop giving to feckless foreigners and immigrants that will magically pay for all our long-term healthcare needs is exactly that.

And, err, you didn't buy the house to pay for healthcare, you bought the house to live in. Perhaps another way of saying "I don't want to pay out of my children's inheritance for my care in old age" is "my children shouldn't be expected to support me, I want to suck on the NHS's teet" i.e. typical dole mole language. Cheer up, though, you might get lucky and get hit by a bus – no expensive long-term care needed for you and your kids can keep the house! 😆

Don't think there's anything wrong with putting some money aside for your children. There are enough people complaining on here they can't afford their first house. I could put £100k in a bank account for them and the government wouldn't touch it. Give them a £100k house and suddenly they want £8000 of it when I die…

breathesay – indeed – but why should the taxpayer pay for your care so your capital is untouched to pass on. Do you really think that is a good use of tax?

Cheer up, though, you might get lucky and get hit by a bus – no expensive long-term care needed for you and your kids can keep the house!

Or you spend your life contributing to a 'National Care Service', then get hit by a bus, you don't need long term care so the money is available for someone who wasn't able to pay in as much during their lifetime, and your kids get to keep the house, albeit a slightly smaller one 🙂

Some strange arguments on here. If you've got assets to pay for your care then you should be required to use them. If not, then it's fair that the state should provide a safety net (which I am happy to pay for). But it's not logical or fair for me to be expected to pay more taxes so that someone else can leave their house to their children.

If I get it right I plan to die leaving just enough to pay for the funeral. If the bus hits me first then that's a bonus for a few people. 🙂

go on then. You work out the eligibility criteria for who lives and who dies – and I will pick holes in it.

Woman of 16 gives birth and dies in childbirth. Father is unidentified. Child is profoundly disabled and requires healthcare. Does he live or die?

Yep, child gets health care, easy this, give me another.

What criteria are you going to use – You have already contradicted yourself as non of the childs family have contributed.

So – as you don't want a universal free for all system that we have please tell me how you are going to define who deserves to die.

Agree with TJ. That criteria?

Middle aged man gets knocked over in a hit and run accident, but as no ID on him.

Do you leave him to die from this injurries until you work out if he's met your criteria or not?

If you've got assets to pay for your care then you should be required to use them.

Why stop at 'Social Care' though, why not do this for the rest of our healthcare provision? Why are the two treated differently?

Theres no contradiction, her father could have been a NI payer and to make exceptions for children born of unknown parents would be a very small addition anyway.

I dont mind paying for the half wits naturally present in any community but universal healthcare cant work in a society as fluid as ours.

If everything is free there's no incentive to contribute, you may as well just as well wander the world looking for the best handouts and let the few mugs who pay taxes pick up the bill.

but universal healthcare cant work in a society as fluid as ours.

I know it's not perfect but I think the NHS does, by and large, work, I've never had a bad personal experience and have probably had my money's worth.

So – what criteria are you going to use then? come on – we want to know.

You said earlier that only people who had contributed or whos families had contributed. How close family? will a cousin who worked for a year in the 80s do?

You have been given a couple of scenarios of people who do not fit your criteria but you decided they could have an exemption. How about the child born with opiate addiction to parents who are the third generation of junkies that never worked, Does that baby get healthcare? No one in 3 generations has contributed ever.

The problem with all mean testing for state provided benefits at a later satge in life is the unfairness of the following example. Two guys earn exactly the same amount throughout their life, one is from the George Best school and spends all of his money on booze, women etc, the other saves for his retirement and old age.

How can it be fair for the latter to disadvantaged compared to the former if he is mean tested out of benefits, whether pension or long term care, the other is entitled to. There has to be an incentive in the system to save. If not, then why would anyone but the richest bother and then the economy will be completely stuffed.

I can't help thinking that if people thought they needed to make better provision for themselves in later life they'd be less prepared to sink such eye watering amounts of money into mortgages while in their 30s and 40s which in the end only tends to make their parent's generation richer anyway. Given that many people in their 50s, 60s and 70s are often now extremely asset-rich because of this property mania, it doesn't seem too unfair to ask for some of that windfall to be put toward their old age care should they need it.

Passing those assets down a generation to middle aged people isn't going to help young people get on the housing ladder after all (perhaps what they could do is use it to get a house big enough for granny to live in with the family and therefore get looked after, but this doesn't seem to be done very often any more).

There has to be an incentive in the system to save. If not, then why would anyone but the richest bother and then the economy will be completely stuffed.

Wonder how we could do that?

Can't see a party whose pledge was to remove 60% of benefits getting many votes. Even though it is what's required for the long term.

The people get the government they deserve after all.

Once again I find myself agreeing with TJ!

A subject close to my heart, it's well overdue for addressing.

TJ
I cant respond without repeating what Ive already said, if you dont understand theres not a lot to say.

If everything is free there's no incentive to contribute, you may as well just as well wander the world looking for the best handouts and let the few mugs who pay taxes pick up the bill.

Foreigner-bashing again? "They come over here, take our healthcare…". Anyone would think you believe that if it weren't for the foreigners, everything would be peachy.

starseven – I have understood what you say – however it was very general. I would like to know what criteria you want to use to say who is eligible for NHS treatment under your ideas.

You said only those who had contributed or whos families had contributed, but when given examples of people who would not qualify under those rules you found exemptions for them.

so can you clear it up? Precisely who is going to be eligible? How close does the family connection have to be to a contributor to get free healthcare?

If everything is free there's no incentive to contribute, you may as well just as well wander the world looking for the best handouts and let the few mugs who pay taxes pick up the bill.

Foreigner-bashing again? "They come over here, take our healthcare…". Anyone would think you believe that if it weren't for the foreigners, everything would be peachy.

Racist alert,Racist alert, can't say that, cant discuss it, cant even think it. How retarded.

If you are in a group that contributes to a fund why should the fund be open to everyone? An element of care can be allowed for visitors but if whatever is in the fund is divided by twice as many people theres half as much each.

You lot seem to want me to make up that 50% by selling my house, well I don't like that deal.

I'm not writing a paper on eligibility, the principle is clear.

My in-laws [both in their late 70s] have pretty much disposed of all their assets to the immediate family – something they started doing 10 years ago

That can't be right in many ways but it highlights the ineffectiveness of the current system where they feel the need to do this
I'm in my 50s now & I'm seriously considering gifting my house to the kids now

My GF's Nan has just gone into a care home. She's not eligable for free care, so her house and savings have gone towards her care. This will pay for less than two years care. Then she'll have no assets and be eligable. I don't really know whether anyone has benefitted from that.

I do agree with Porterclough, though. I don't earn a huge amount, but I'm very careful with my money. I save what I can and have a house with a very manageable mortgage. I have no problem with paying for my own care in my old age.

However, I have friends who earn 3-4 times what I do and have fewer assets, choosing to spend what they earn on holidays, fancy gadgets and rent. I don't have a problem with that and it's their choice, but ultimately they'll get free care in old age as they'll have nothing, and I'll pay for mine. Is that a fair and reasonable system?

So lets see if i've got this right .The lazy bastards of which there are many round here , never work and have no intention of working get looked after to the grave .Meanwhile i've worked , paid NI Income tax provided for my family bought my own house and not been a burden am expected to sell my only asset left ?Hmmmm that sounds really fair !

I don't really know whether anyone has benefitted from that.

Whilst no individual has specifically benefited from this situation it is faire to say that the "taxpayer" in general has. Given that this woman has had to move into care, what possible use is her house to her?

I'm normally very much on the left on this sort of thing and think that in general this sort of thing should be covered by the state however isn't this exactly the sort of thing that savings and assets are for? I know for a fact that my parents intend to leave nothing of any real monetary value to me and my sisters. Having supported three of us through Higher education and been generous when it came to buying property, I can't say I blame them.

Racist alert,Racist alert, can't say that, cant discuss it, cant even think it. How retarded.

If you are in a group that contributes to a fund why should the fund be open to everyone? An element of care can be allowed for visitors but if whatever is in the fund is divided by twice as many people theres half as much each.

It's more of a "bollocks unrealistic answer alert", actually. The NHS already has residency and contribution requirements before it's free at point of service, so would any long-term care programme. You keep banging on about foreigners as if they cause all the problems but even if you passed a law that said "no-one who hadn't lived and worked here for the last 30 years is allowed access", it still wouldn't solve the problem, because the problem is endogenous. Immigrants come young and help reduce the worker/dependent ratio, low birthrate and average age problems, not aggrevate it.

I think the whole issues comes down to timing. If we'd have realised 20/30 years ago (some say we should have…) that we would need more old age care then the bullet should have been bitten and 1% or whatever bunged on National Insurance and ringfenced to provide the backbone of the care.

The problem is successive governments have ignored the issue and now the country desperately needs the cash now, hence these talks of big upfront charges/taxes.

Surprised Gordon hasn't decided to dip into whatever pension funds people have left…

oldfart – Member

So lets see if i've got this right .The lazy bastards of which there are many round here , never work and have no intention of working get looked after to the grave .Meanwhile i've worked , paid NI Income tax provided for my family bought my own house and not been a burden am expected to sell my only asset left ?Hmmmm that sounds really fair !

Oldgit – thats one way of looking at it. The other is that you have a large asset but you still expect the state to pay for your care? Effectively the taxpayer is paying for your kids to inherit. It will make no difference to you – you will end up in the same bed in the nursing home.

Why should the taxpayer pay for you when you have the ability to pay for yourself? thats fair as well isn't it?

neither way sounds fair. As said above perhaps different decisions should have been ade years ago – but without people using their assets to pay for care a significant tax increase is needed from somewhere.

You could have paid a couple of % of extra tax all your life – that whould have paid for it.