The True Cost Of Care Reforms

United Nations Human Rights Council logo.

United Nations Human Rights Council logo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

English: Andrew Lansley, British politician an...

English: Andrew Lansley, British politician and Shadow Secretary of State for Health, speaking at the Health Hotel reception at the Manchester Central Conference Centre during the Conservative Party Conference 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


The Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, has suggested that elderly people could be forced to pay up to £100,000 towards the cost of their care before the Government picks up the bill. The figure is nearly three times the £35,000 cap proposed by Andrew Dilnot. Pensioners moving into residential homes would be able to borrow money from their local authorities, meaning they would not have to sell their homes before they die. Such a move angered councils, charities and unions, with pensioners’ groups describing the loans as a “death tax”. Sir Merrick Cockell, chairman of the LGA, said the proposals were “papering over the cracks” and did nothing to resolve the funding shortfall faced by town halls. Councils will also have to offer a minimum level of care and be unable to limit who could get care.

This extract l saw today and it led me to write this about the truth behind the story!

At the same time l saw this article and it became so clear to me about how we are so easily deceived!

Human Rights Considerations

A Government panel of experts are considering whether Labour’s Human Rights Act should be extended to include so-called “socio-economic rights”. Such a move would allow the unemployed to take the Government to court if ministers did not provide a minimum standard of living. The review has also raised the prospect of a legal ban on all discrimination against any group, and the introduction of the “environmental right” to live free from pollution. 

What ever happened to our human rights and how is it we let these so-called politicians, dictate our lives, to such an extent that we have no life. Let us look at this great new way to stop people selling their home to pay for their care. On my post yesterday l said how l saw the future and how we will all become hooked by what we need becoming what they want! On the face off it the government gives us a new way to keep our home and excludes to add the fact that the loan will enhance their lending policy and earn their lenders a nice healthy interest to boot! On the plus side we can all wait until we die and instead of a cap of £35,000 it will be a mere £100,00 plus interest of course. But what about death duties that can be mitigated by giving away our assets prior to death, oh hang on we cannot and another tax is payable at a mere X now and by the time of your death Y or even Z.

So in 1980 onward we are all told to become homeowners and we will all be better off and not have to rent anymore, well  that was a crock was it not! Well it all fell apart for some in the early 90’s and many lost their home. Then we all saw a rise in property that trebled and quadrupled until a home could cost millions in places of the world. So why not use it to borrow and borrow and borrow and have more and the upshot when we retire and pay off our mortgages, the government puts us back in hoc to them until the day we die!

So the true cost of care reforms is not what we are told we gain,but what we lose. By the fact we wanted this bill and now we have got it and we do not like the fact, we are the real losers again!

#andrew-dilnot, #andrew-lansley, #government, #labour, #loan, #local-government-association, #merrick-cockell, #secretary-of-state-for-health