The DT managed to annoy me again this morning, with the loud headline of the 'Your money' section being: 'I reclaimed £226,559 in care fees. You can too'.
It seems that the subject of this particular care was a chap who came over from Ireland many years ago, did pretty well for himself, building up various businesses, including the farm on which he lived. So not a poor man.
When he got old and ill he went into care, paying for it out of his own resources. After he died, his family went to the sort of lawyer who recovered the sum mentioned above from the council on a no-win-no-fee basis, taking around 20% of the swag for his trouble.
It seems that an important part of all this is deciding whether you need care because you are ill or because you are old, with the state footing the bill in the former case, but not in the latter, assuming, that is, that you do have the money yourself. Which, it seems to me, is not a good rule. There should not be an all or nothing choice between being ill and being old, with some kind of a sliding scale being far more appropriate. Rather in the way that insurance companies pay out when your drains collapse, mainly because they are old. They give you a percentage for the accident and you have to pay the balance, as the maintenance needed to keep normal wear and tear at bay.
But what really annoyed me was the tone of the headline. The idea that the state is fair game when it comes to offloading the cost of care of a loved one. A state which has clearly not made provision for the rapidly escalating cost of such care - while we have been happy to applaud the lack of tax arising from this lack of provision.
And when Prime Minister May attempted to put all this on the agenda during the recent election, she got assaulted from all sides, by all parties. Attack dogs ruled. So much for caring Corbyn.
No comments:
Post a Comment