Middle-class people who have saved throughout their lives may have to pay even more to cover their personal care in old age, it emerged yesterday.
Plans unveiled by Health Secretary Andy Burnham last month envisaged everyone with property and savings over £23,500 paying a lump sum into an insurance scheme to fund the full costs of their personal care.
The amount – which could be deferred until a person’s death and taken from their estate – would be around £20,000 for everyone above the Government’s threshold.
But it has now emerged that another option is a sliding scale, with people with larger savings paying more than £20,000, while those who have only a modest amount pay less.
People with a normal-sized family home would pay less than those with expensive homes and large private pension pots.
The Government’s Green Paper of proposals on care and support says: ‘People at or over retirement age would be required to pay into a national scheme. It would be possible to vary how much people had to pay according to what they could afford.
‘The size of people’s contribution could be set according to what savings or assets they had, so that the system was more affordable for people who were less well-off.’ Mr Burnham said:
‘We want a fairer, simpler and more affordable system than now.’
[More]
Ahhh … here it comes, the death tax. “The amount – which could be deferred until a person’s death and taken from their estate (coffin?) – would be around £20,000.”
“‘People at or over retirement age would be required to pay into a national scheme.” At least they are honest enough to call it a “scheme”.
Queens Park will be setting up committees to examine this tax grab as we speak.
I have no problem paying for my Health over and above the basic insurance. But I do have a big problem with death panels saying:
“ nomdeblog has lived long enough. Queens Park is not going to spend more money to keep him alive, and because we must offer everyone equal treatment we are not going to let him pay for the expensive procedures out of his own pocket that would keep him alive longer. Ohhhh .. and as soon as we pull the plug on him , we are going to tax him for having spent money on him thus far.”
This is why the left hates Sarah Palin. She is making us aware of the moral issues surrounding life and death.
Yet it’s ok to say “nomdeblog is not rich enough. he cannot afford the treatment so he dies”. Is it the apparent randomness of the free market death panel that alleviates the conscience?
No, it is the desire to be as self-sufficient as possible and not submit myself to elitists to decide how to spend my savings. Moreover it is the fear that it is in their interest that I die so that they can tax me to fund their mismanagement of other peoples money.
Cynapse, what free market death panel? Did someone invent one?
Yet another article talking about the middle class getting taxed. Isn’t that like “dog bites man”?
Cynapse, what free market death panel? Did someone invent one?
It’s inherent whenever there are scarce resources that distributed via supply/demand and life or death is involved. We just don’t recognize it as such because there’s no scary government bureaucrat with terminator glasses involved.
Mac the “progressives” always like to drag out a free market boogey man as being even more scary than the real “scary government bureaucrat with terminator glasses involved” that we can point to.
But our political elitist class like Jack Layton who used Shouldice and Paul Martin who uses Medisys; they will not allow an intelligent discussion of choice or of “rationing” which exists in every form of life. They will not entertain the idea that scarce resources need not be as scarce if we anticipate shortages and have alternative options. That’s because at the core they are Health Care fascists who rob the middle class of more choice. Palin called out the Ivy League boys running Washington who didn’t see this “death panel” coming and still don’t understand what the middle class is upset about.
Bottom line: Dr K today says what is needed is Health “insurance reform”, not wholesale changes and threats to delivery of Health Care.
nom, why is your first line of defense, when confronted about the structural inequity behind your loaded dice game of a philosophy, to call people progressives or leftists? Could it just be that your game is rigged? Someone half as smart as you can figure out that there will always be lots of choice so long as said patient is able to pay … but that someone can’t pay then obviously they’re not going to get it, so the “choice” is kind of moot. Sounds to me like a decision‘s been made! Why won’t you have an honest conversation about this?
Why are you so dead set against the free market?
Because it isn’t free. Freedom comes with regulation (as does capitalism). Freedom implies randomness or at least a passable probability that someone can go from worst to first. The former never existed and the latter is getting rarer thanks to deregulation of markets and attempts by the right to crush every government-initiated bootstrap from which someone with nothing could actually pull themselves up. Deregulation is not freedom – it is a carte blanche for the high rollers to crush everyone else (job conditions, pay, environmental damage) without bound.
I used to be an adherent 100% but noticed the high number of “hard working” people who got all their degrees, worked their 50-70 hours a week … and still have nothing (or have something at the expense of a dangerous debt load). Whatever you enjoyed under capitalism isn’t reaching to my generation. The only people I know who feel secure in their existence and happy about the future belong to unions – hardly a pillar of the free market. Should we continue to pimp a system that is quite blatantly screwing us because we fear otherwise being called socialists? Well apparently, because as a long as someone gets rich the system must work. I love looking at all the choice I can’t afford.
Fix the system and maybe more people will support it.
Cynapse , I just find it amazing that the “progressives” can go on the attack about conservatives ALL being a bunch of so-cons against pro-choice, yet when it comes to my Health, they see no hypocrisy in not letting me have choice.
OK, you say “Fix the system and maybe more people will support it.”
Dr Krauthammer’s prescription today deserves some consideration, he calls it Obamacare 2.0 :
Fix the problems inherent in current health-insurance regulation that prohibits (a) denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, (b) dropping coverage if the client gets sick.
He should add that insurance needs to be made portable if you switch jobs or if you lose your job it can be topped up with some kind of EI insurance for Health insurance for your family.
In other words if you did the above then most of the severe problems would be fixed yet Americans would still have choice on delivery of Health
Why can’t we have something like that too? Give me basic OHIP insurance coverage then let me shop around for better solutions if I want to pay for it and to get it faster if I want to pay for it? To deny me the ability to shop for my Health is fascist. In short, get Queens Park out of the Health delivery business; instead insure basic coverage to be delivered by the free market (by the entrepreneurs vs apparatchiks in Queens Park) and reduce the Liberal looting that permits government union monopolies to dominate Health.
Ohhh . and as to feeling secure. Security is in your head not your wallet. I’ve been very “comfortable” and I’ve been poor … security is a state of mind.
Why can’t we have something like that too? Give me basic OHIP insurance coverage then let me shop around for better solutions if I want to pay for it and to get it faster if I want to pay for it?
That already exists. Mine’s call option #2 on the company health plan and reduced a lot of costs when I had to fix my leg. My dad’s ensured a private room after his heart attack. No one was deprived of health-care as a result of either of those things, unlike some of the Social-Darwinism-in-drag options being discussed in the States by the strictly for-profit health industry there.
Just say this much – admit that very few people can pull a spare $100k out of their pocket for heart surgery, which has a lot to do with the abundance of “choice” for those who can.
BTW, haven’t read Krauthammer’s proposal yet but will comb it carefully, particularly given his willingness to spend quite a few lives in his geo-political pursuits.
“Just say this much – admit that very few people can pull a spare $100k out of their pocket ”
Right!
That’s why I’m all for very good basic insurance. It’s just that I notice the Honda Accord now has options only a Lexus had ..GPS, Bluetooth.
Therefore we would expect the basic coverage for Health to trickle up to the Lexus (or the Rolex) over time . I’ve experienced the uncertainty you describe and don’t want to minimize it but “growing the pie’ versus simply redistributing it is the best option for all ..even Belinda Stronach believed in that …once.
BTW .. you won’t like the rest of the Dr K article.
Probably not. There’s usually an ironic twist of social darwinism behind much of Dr K’s work. Will check later though. Have a good evening.
Cynapse said.. “nom, why is your first line of defense, when confronted about the structural inequity behind your loaded dice game of a philosophy, to call people progressives or leftists? Could it just be that your game is rigged?”
I’ve never heard/seen any kind of free-market advocate, fiscal conservative or libertarian complain about the imaginary loaded dice which you insist exist. It’s ironic how you actively advocate loading the dice for some groups…
You see how it works guys?
You cannot solve these kinds of problems by throwing out words and phrases that elicit emotional responses.
Canada has problems
The UK has problems.
The U.S.A. has problems.
These problems can be fixed by a close examination of facts and data, and fixers with the fortitude to do whats necessary.
We can argue socialism, free market, etc. til the cows come home and nothing gets fixed.
The simple truth is that there are those who “fall through the cracks” in every system.
Also there are those who have no problem at all. So why on earth would anyone want to mess with those who have no problem? There is nothing that needs fixing.
Look after the problem.
I hasten to say that i dont have the answer, but i would bet the farm that i could find it if i had the resources. So could a lot of people.
The question is: Why hasn’t it been done?
I’ve never heard/seen any kind of free-market advocate, fiscal conservative or libertarian complain about the imaginary loaded dice which you insist exist
Why would they? The average hardcore capitalist is a land-owning male of decent education and social privilege, with no need for government assistance. Any system that keeps the law away from their pursuit to make an extra buck or be kept at the front of the line will suffice. Cutthroat capitalism is such a system. There are others, granted.
As to your last comment, learn to differentiate between loading the dice and evening the playing field. If you see no difference, you probably won’t see the revolt coming … every corrupt system with selective rules falls to it though – how do you think Islamism / Marxism / etc gained so much traction to begin with?
You asked why nomdeblog’s “first line of defense” was to invoke progressives and leftists. I don’t necessarily agree with your description of average hardcore capitalists. My point was agreeing with nomdeblog that those who usually make that kind of complaint are progressives and leftists. Is pointing out the truth a reasonable line of defense?
From what you’ve posted, it appears you don’t want an even playing field. You want loaded dice but you want ‘em loaded to your preference. Injustice in the cause of redressing inequities is still injustice. Two wrongs don’t make a right…. but three lefts do, apparently…
What’s unjust about equal access to health-care for all? There’s nothing unjust about stopping Moneybags Mac (or someone else) from jumping the line because he flashes a little cash. Ironically, this practice is common in the former communist states – you often have to slip the secretary $20 to see a doctor right away. Only, they don’t sugarcoat what it is.
BTW, I’m doing great under the current system because I have a corporate plan. But as fewer Americans have homes to mortgage when the first major surgery comes along, I think you’re going to find a backlash against the eat-what-you-kill approach to health-care.
What’s unjust about allowing private clinics where those who can afford to do so can get expedited healthcare? It wouldn’t affect equal access for all citizens except by shortening wait lists.
BTW, I don’t have to flash cash; I get preferential treatment by virtue of my value as an employee of the federal government. I argue for private care on principle, not personal need.
Does it make sense to send Canadian citizens and their resources to the US rather than providing local private service? I don’t see any benefit to Canada in doing so. If there is such, please elucidate for me. Allowing private clinics would remove the likelihood of any US backlash.
A public health care system in the presence of a major private care system will end up like legal aid: useless. Sure a “professional” was there but there’s no way they dedicated even 10% of their attention to the client because there’s no real money involved. What doctor’s going to spend any amount of time or energy on “charity cases” when real money can be made in the private sector? As long as the rich guys have to use the system, it won’t totally go to crap. Under your solution, there will be one health-care system and one shell of a health-care system where the professionals are making a D-grade effort.
The solution will have to be a bit better than medical apartheid. Even government-as-insurer with 100% private delivery would work better because at least the rich guys would have to use the same facilities deemed fit for “the little people”
Realistically, the rich don’t use the current system so what you’re talking about is forcing the middle class to use the system… and chances are that wouldn’t change since most of us in the middle class couldn’t afford private care even if it was readily available.
I doubt there are enough “rich” people to support a full alternative private healthcare system in any province in Canada. No-one is suggesting private clinics would ever approach such, let alone medical apartheid. You’re casting up worst-case scenarios which could never come to pass.