CARE CAP CON TRICK?

YOU may already have seen reports in the News about a £75,000 cap on social care for the elderly. That is to say, those of us who are owner-occupiers and/or those of us with substantial savings, and/or an appropriate insurance policy will not be expected to contribute more than £75,000 of the value of our property, savings or policy, should we need social care in our later years.
 
In February of this year, the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt announced in Parliament that his proposal for such a cap would be of help to a significant number of people in England. He added that, up to now, many families have faced ruinous costs with little or no assistance from the State, so the proposed new framework would “bring greater certainty, fairness and peace of mind.”

Okay, so how many of us assumed that this £75,000 cap covered care … i.e. nursing and all other related costs … in their entirety? I certainly did, and if you did too, we were wrong: big time! Only now, is it becoming clearer that the cap covers basic nursing costs and nothing more. It does not cover the costs to the individual of retirement or nursing home fees or even the food served at such establishments.

As if that isn’t enough to be getting-on with, there’s a big sting in the tail too. If you are assessed at having “low” or “moderate” care needs, the care costs you incur will NOT count towards the £75.000 cap. Only if your needs are assessed as “substantial” or “critical” will the cap come into play. And, as if to add insult to injury, there’s yet another aspect to this sorry state of affairs that the politicians seem to think is of little or no consequence. The relevant legislation is not likely to come into force until 2017, and if … note the word “if” … the legislation is approved, those who qualify for assistance, over and above the £75,000 cap, are unlikely to start receiving support before 2019 at the earliest.
 
For quite a few years now, local government authorities have been stressing that the care of the elderly is grossly under-funded. So why has the issue been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent? Some campaigners point to 1997 when Tony Blair came to power, and claim they’ve been pressing for – and promised – action ever since. Promises, promises!


Clearly, this is yet another major UK issue involving the retired and elderly that could be resolved overnight by the suspension or scrapping of the largely discredited Overseas Aid we dole-out to all-and-sundry every year. I’m not usually given to quoting chapter and verse but, as a former Sunday school teacher, I’m reminded of a passage from the New Testament … “Why do you seek the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” (RSV Matthew 7 verses 3 to 5 inclusive). In other words, let’s put our own house in order FIRST, before we try to resolve the perceived, and sometimes wholly imaginary, problems of other nation states.

By the way, I make no apology for using the words “Con Trick” in the title of this article.

OLDER DRIVERS A DANGER?

 

The Ford Popular in which I passed my driving test in 1963

 

A RECENT report states that drivers over the age of 65 should be required by law to re-evaluate their driving skills and, if necessary, re-take their driving test. Research carried-out by the respected motor industry publication Auto Trader found that one in five of those people questioned in the survey think there should be stricter regulations for older drivers.

Renewal

Currently, a UK driving licence expires when the holder reaches the age of seventy, and if the holder wishes to continue driving he or she must apply to the Driver & Vehicle Agency (DVA) for a renewal. In fact, two months before a driver’s seventieth birthday, and every three years after that, the DVA will send a reminder and a form DL1R to complete. There is no fee levied against this renewal procedure, and there are no compulsory tests to undertake. Nevertheless, all drivers aged seventy or over are urged to check that they are still capable behind the wheel, each time they receive their renewal reminder.

Medical Checks

 

More than twenty per cent of those questioned in the Auto Trader survey; however, felt that the age barrier should be lower than seventy: many suggesting that 65 would be a preferred alternative. Looking at other areas of the survey results, approximately sixty-five per cent of those questioned believe older drivers should also be compelled to undergo medical checks, such as regular sight and coordination tests, before being allowed behind the wheel again. Similarly, thirty per cent of the survey’s respondents thought the government should cut the number of points older drivers are allowed before their licence is revoked.

                                                                       Awareness

Apparently, the most common concerns voiced by those questioned were that older people have a lower level of awareness and slow reaction speeds. As a result, more than a quarter of those surveyed admit to feeling unsafe when getting into a car with a driver over the age of sixty-five.

Discrimination

Did you notice there was one very important four letter word missing from the above statement about awareness and reaction speeds? The word I’m thinking of is “some” and it should sit in front of the words “older people”. True, as we’ve aged, some of us will have lost a proportion of the reaction time we may have had in our late teens and twenties. But that doesn’t mean to say we’ve lost our road sense as well. To suggest that we all lose those skills at the same time, and to the same degree, is just plain wrong, and it smacks of discrimination. Moreover, that statement conveniently overlooks the fact that – regardless of age – some drivers and riders have a shortfall in basic road sense from the very day they venture onto the roads for the first time, and it never improves.

Ageism

Consequently, looking again at the results of that Auto Trader investigation, one begins to wonder about the average age profile of those who responded to the survey. Unfortunately that isn’t made clear in the reports I’ve seen but, reading between the lines, I would hazard a guess that most of the respondents were in the age bracket of – say – twenty-five to fortysomething. That being so, it would seem ageism is rearing its ugly head yet again.

Equal Measure

I’ve been a qualified driver (and motor-cyclist) for very nearly fifty years, and almost from that day in 1964 when I drove solo for the first time, I have been conscious of the fact that the elderly DO NOT have a monopoly on bad driving standards. On the contrary, poor driving skills and a lack of basic road sense covers both sexes and all age groups in equal measure: it always has done, and it always will do. Yes, I’ve made silly mistakes on the road over the years, just like all other drivers and riders. However, I believe I made just as many errors – if not more – between my late teens and late twenties, than I have done since. To back-up my claim, Official statistics show drivers over the age of seventy are safer than those under the age of thirty. The figures speak for themselves: the over seventies make-up nine per cent of drivers but only six per cent of driver casualties, while drivers under thirty make-up twenty per cent of drivers but a whopping thirty-five per cent of casualties.

Mockery

So let’s not hear any more of this ‘lowering of the age barrier’ nonsense from seventy to sixty-five. Suggesting such a move is not only age discrimination, but it also makes a mockery of the government’s plan to raise the retirement age beyond 65. Besides, those who point their accusing fingers at a pensioner behind the wheel of a car overlook the fact that, before they know it, they’ll be a pensioner too … as long as they continue to use our roads safely, with a keen sense of awareness, and a liberal dose of common courtesy towards other road users.
 

 

California 2007 and my hired Chrysler 300 ... what a car!