3 ms·
> Theresa May tried to sell this as part of her election campaign. It was a disaster. No one wants to be forced to give up some of their personal wealth to pay
by mmarq 3y ago
> Theresa May tried to sell this as part of her election campaign. It was a disaster. No one wants to be forced to give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into.
It's not as simple as "give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into". If you have 20K in your bank account and no property, you have to pay for your care. If you own 2 flats worth 1M each and have 10K in your bank account, you pay nothing. The so-called "dementia tax" would have make this situation fairer. Besides, they wouldn't have to release equity while alive, but the cost of care would be paid by the heirs upon selling or inheriting their parent's property.
Imagine a scenario where you have 20K in your bank account. You child inherits only 10K, because you had to pay for your care. Now imagine you have 2 flats and 10K in your bank account. Your child gets the whole lot. Does this look fair?
Theresa May, that, as far as I'm concerned, should be sent to the Hague for architecting the hostile environment for foreigners, had only one non-demented idea in her entire political career: making social care fairer, and that's what killed her premiership. I can't think of a more emblematic example of what is going on in the UK.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mcny 3y ago> Does this look fair? No, but because we should end means testing completely. I thought NHS meant you didn't have to do all the things we have to do here in the US. A few years ago, I had to do an annual wellness exam so I could keep my health insurance "discount" at work. There was some miscommunication within the three parties: 1. Doctor's office 2. Lab 3. Insurance and I had to act like a mediator between them. I thought that was bad enough but NHS sounds worse now.
- scott_w 3y agoThe Conservative government that's been in power for 13 years has consistently underfunded the NHS. While the current vogue is to blame Covid, it's only been the final crack in a dam that's been bursting for years now.
- DeathArrow 3y agoThey already paid for NHS during their active period. Why should people have to pay again, once retired? If you request them to pay for healthcare, after they are retired, then you shouldn't ask them for money during their active period.
- marvin 3y agoWelcome to the beautiful world of empty, overconfident political promises that are smashed against the rocks of reality 30 years later. This is why I plan to finance my own retirement and consider a minimum social security pension a happy bonus.
- adammarples 3y agoBecause they paid £15k for their house in 1974 and it's gone up to £1.5 million through no special skill of their own. Their life expectancy has also increased 10 years in that time due to NHS advances so they will be living longer and costing much more than before to care for. The calculus as to what they own and what they owe has changed dramatically just during their life span.
- anigbrowl 3y agoThis is obtuse; you're ignoring the observation that people with sufficient cash have to pay now, and the contrast with property owners. Sure, you may think it's unfair that anyone has to pay after having paid taxes, that's a legitimate opinion I happen to share. But just stating that and ignoring the rest of the GP post isn't helpful.