England

Britain Is Turning Into a Welfare State Dystopia

Theresa May wants to go after seniors' homes to pay for their long-term care

|

Across the pond where our former colonial rulers live, British Prime Minister Theresa May triggered a maelstrom of protest that threw the Tory

Theresa May
The Prime Minister's Office via Foter.com / CC BY-NC-ND

Party in a crisis ahead of special elections June 8. What did she do? She proffered the heretical idea of scrapping a proposed cap on the out-of-pocket expenses of seniors who need long-term care. Her Tory predecessor David Cameron had promised to implement the cap by 2020 and May's suggestions was a breach of faith, not just for her Labor opponents but even her Tory friends.

She beat a hasty retreat on that plan, but the problem for England's welfare states is that it's fast running out of other people's money, to use the immortal words of another British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. And to deal with that situation, May is now proposing something even more intrusive, I note in my column at The Week.

She wants to be able to collect the state's share of spending on the long-term care of seniors' against the sale of their homes after they die. This might strike most people as defeating the whole purpose of a welfare state, but it does demonstrate the truth of the old adage that a government that is powerful enough to give you what you want is also powerful enough to take away what you've got.

Go here to read the whole thing.

Advertisement

NEXT: House Overwhelmingly Supports Bill Subjecting Teen Sexters to 15 Years in Federal Prison

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Only one solution: More third-world immigrants.

  2. Wait. I never read the part where the printing presses at the treasury were broken.
    How can there be an actual limit to government spending?
    If it is not for the children it has to be for the elderly.
    Or is it because those with dementia may not vote?

    1. …those with dementia may not vote?

      Really? Look at their election results.

  3. I’m surprised it has taken them this long, given Socialism’s deep hostility to private property.

  4. This already happens here. Avoiding Medicaid estate recovery is probably the number one reason people go to estate planning attorneys.

    1. Rose 2d of Aberlone|5.31.17 @ 12:10PM|#
      “This already happens here.”

      Probably be cheaper if you took a reverse mortgage and paid the bill rather than let the gov’t get their sticky fingers on it.

    2. Wat?

      Those on Medicaid are on Medicaid because they’re *poor*. They don’t have estates to need planning over. They might have an old house. Those people are not going to estate planners to help reduce the inheritence bill over their old house.

      1. It’s cute that you think that. He’s right.

  5. but it does demonstrate the truth of the old adage that a government that is powerful enough to give you what you want is also powerful enough to take away what you’ve got.

    Either very few people get this, or they figure it’s a feature.

    1. They only from other people; you know, “the rich”.

      1. “take”

    2. Yeah, I guess I just don’t understand the mentality of people who want the government to handle all their affairs… so you’d be okay with paying for your own healthcare only as long as the government essentially owns your home?

      1. They already own your income, why not your house?

        1. They do own your house via property taxes.

          1. “They” being local governments in the case of property tax vs federal regarding Medicaid.

  6. yeah, that is about how it works here already. coworkers parent just went threw it. you have to be below a certain net worth for government assistance with assisted living and if you are above they liquidate assets and take proceeds of sale of the home to cover it. You can do things like have a kid live for three years before they go to assisted living so it can be transfered tax free..

    1. this happened to my grandma after her stroke.
      we had to sell everything she had left, then we had to pay a bunch.

  7. People with assets have to pay for the services they receive? What’s the problem here?

    You want to inherit the family farm? Take care of your own parents. You want me to take care of your parents, I get the family farm.

    1. Except that’s not in the spirit of “free” health care.

    2. This

      1. Very This. Gee I wonder what will happen if I sell my soul to the Devil?

  8. What Theresa May was going to do was to require people with substantial resources (e.g., a big house) to spend those resources on themselves rather than passing the wealth down to their heirs. What May originally proposed was sound libertarian “doctrine”, which Nick Gillespie preaches constantly: most old folks are rich and should be expected to take care of themselves. Most people do not receive any inheritance, or very little. Why should the state subsidize the children of the rich?

    1. If you define most old people as being “rich,” then your “children of the rich” is most people, i.e., most middle class people are rich.

      Libertarians understand the moral hazard that occurs when you provide welfare to people and thus incentivize continued poverty. Or at least they used to. Now, a dominant trend is to say, sure, we have to support the destitute, but not anyone who acted responsibly and saved their money. Thus, the poor and spendthrift get free stuff, the rich get their taxes cut, the middle class gets screwed.

      1. All the people who worked part time to pay their way to a STEM degree should pay off the loans of all the people who borrowed their way to an arts degree. It’s only fair.

      2. The majority of all subsidies goes to the middle class. Cut the bullshit. The top 20% (and I’m being generous going that far down) support the rest.

  9. Basically you are fucked if you are middle class. You either want to be poor to have government pay for everything, or rich so you can afford your own stuff AND paying for other people’s stuff

    1. I got a friend that can confirm. Single mother, works 2-3 jobs and pulls 60+ hours a week – makes too much money to get into the subisidized housing they’re building a few blocks away from here. Doesn’t make enough money to save up for a down payment or qualify for a mortgage she can afford.

      They told here that if she were to work less, take in less money, then she could qualify – but she’d have to *stay* at that lower income for 5 or more years or she’d lose the subsidized house.

      Fucking insane. Until you realize the purpose of welfare is now to increase the size and power of the welfare bureaucracy and not provide a ‘safety net’.

      Oh, and obligatory ‘people buying food with EBT in one hand and a new model smartphone with internet subscription in the other’ remark.

  10. Why is the British Left opposed to this? Don’t they want to end “free riding” when it comes to medical care?
    That’s certainly the message here in the States (admittedly, selective, as the Left wants almost everything else to be provided to free riders.)

  11. RE: HIT & RUN BLOG
    Britain Is Turning Into a Welfare State Dystopia

    So what?
    Britain is more than willing to give a shitload of other peoples’ money to The State.
    Having England go bankrupt is small price to pay for socialism.
    But don’t worry.
    That can’t happen here in the good ol’ USA.

  12. In the USA, we just have Magnum PI talk them into a reverse mortgage so the banks can pay for their long-term care.

    1. Yes, as it should be.
      If you have assets and you need money for medical care, why, sell those assets.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.