Currently there is no cap on the maximum a person can pay for care. TM tried to bring in such a cap but it was slated as being a 'dementia tax'. In fact, it would have saved many of us a lot of money.
If people won't have to sell their houses, how would that work for anyone who doesn't have a house? What if you have money in savings but stay in rented property? Would you be penalised and have to spend all yur savings on care because it's not tied up in a property? Without some sort of cap - or an increase in the amount of savings you can have left before SS start to step in - it isn't even the start of a new system, just a random statement from someone who clearly doesn't understand how funding works. He hasn't thought it through, has he?
If the idea of keeping your house is set in stone, I could put all my pennies into my house, spend any savings and just relax knowing SS would pay for any care I need, even if my house was worth millions. (It isn't!)
The care costs for my mum (died in October) came to more than £150,000. Subsequently, that's 150 grand that isn't going to be coming my way! Am I bitter? Well, I do think that those who can pay should pay, or at least contribute. But under the current system, mum wasn't only paying for her own care. She paid more than £200 per week more than the woman in the identical room next door who was council funded, so was effectively subsidizing her care too because the council don't pay enough. That part makes me very angry.