Tories are stalling on social care because they don’t want you to have it

Matt Hancock: millions of people are going without vital care because this bubblehead can’t be bothered to read a report.

Is it really any surprise that the Tory response to Covid-19 in social care situations has been a massacre?

They have no interest in using public funds to provide care for people who need it; they don’t think the money is meant for that.

Also, of course, anything with the word “social” in its title is like garlic to a vampire for them.

For example, has Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock got round to reading a report that stated – in July 2019 – that the social care system needed a cash injection of £8 billion, just to keep it ticking along?

Who knows how much cash it needs now?

Hancock was supposed to respond within two months but didn’t. Perhaps he was on his summer holibobs.

It is now more than a year later. Yes, Hancock has had to handle the Covid-19 pandemic – but if he was a responsible minister, he would not leave other matters dangling, and in any case the crisis has identified serious failings in care home provision.

Hancock has done nothing about them, nor has he lifted a finger to address failings that have left no fewer than 1.4 million older people in the community without help that they need desperately.

Public funding has fallen by £700 million since the Conservatives came back into office in 2010, and 400,000 people have lost their entitlement to help because successive Tory minister couldn’t be bothered to increase the level of means below which a person should be eligible for help, in line with inflation.

Boris Johnson ignored the scandal in his manifesto for last year’s election because he was afraid it would derail is campaign – and your true-blue Tory mass media dutifully turned a blind eye.

Theresa May’s 2017 election campaign was derailed by the issue of social care, after she proposed draconian measures to take families’ property away from them, in order to fund care for frail relatives.

Finally, last week, pressed for an answer on social care by a coalition of English councils, Hancock volunteered a cobbled-together choice between forcing everybody aged over 40 to contribute extra taxes to fund social care in later life – in line with models running in Japan and Germany, and compelling us all to take out insurance that will pay the bills later.

Neither plan is workable.

Firstly, what if people who are taxed for social care in later life never actually need it? This Writer’s grandmother lived to the ripe age of 88, with Altzheimer’s in her later years, but never had social care; my parents are both in their 80s now and are happily – and healthily – at home. Contribution to such a fund for any of them would have been a waste of money.

And the insurance plan is a no-hoper too: payment into private insurance schemes inevitably creates the temptation to cheat the payee out of their funds. Look at the way the criminal US insurance firm Unum cheated its clients out of their payments by ensuring that they could never meet the conditions required for payouts. Look at the number of UK pension funds that have been raided.

And of course we already pay into an insurance fund for our old age: National Insurance. The Tories could simply increase that by 1.5 per cent (that’s the amount of their income that Germans pay), rather than farming the job out to let privateers rob us all.

Either Hancock hasn’t considered any of these issues or he doesn’t care.

Source: Matt Hancock has failed to respond to report warning of social care ‘scandal’ nine months after deadline | The Independent

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


2 thoughts on “Tories are stalling on social care because they don’t want you to have it

  1. Liz Douglas

    This blogger is an ex Unum assessor now keeps everyone informed about their shenanigans she doesn’t share on social media because Unum trolls try to destroy her reputation- Unum continue to this day to fund the Tory’s fyi of course there’s always Sue Jones Politics and Insights who’s done a great deal of work on Unum as you may know

    Be Aware – Unum Grossly Misrepresents Policy Provisions
    August 4, 2020 by lindanee
    Unum Group and its claims representatives have been misrepresenting policy provisions for quite some time, particularly when it comes to the older policies where “rights and privileges” can be read into nearly every provision in bad faith.
    There is one Unum Senior Benefit Specialist located in the Worcester claims office that is particularly nasty to deal with. More than that, this is the second time she has attempted to use an “IME Provision” in an older policy to threaten an insured into compliance with out-of contract requests.
    The first time the threat occurred, she demanded a field visit was that not expressly required via contract language. In 1992, Unum’s old policies didn’t require field visits and field visits were not part of Unum’s risk management strategy at all. In complete misinterpretation of the IME provision, Unum alleged that “medical examination” included a field visit. Bunk! My client and I challenged that interpretation and won.
    This time around, the same “snotty” claims handler is alleging the IME provision also requires the insured to speak with her on the phone. It’s obvious this claims handler became miffed, when the insured asked for communications in writing. This is what the letter to the insured said:
    “The process you are proposing [in writing only] is cumbersome, particularly with respect to follow-up questions. The policy provides us with broad latitude regarding examination and obtaining information regarding your claim.”
    I am actually astounded – Unum DOES NOT have any latitude with IDI non-ERISA claims and is expected to adjudicate the policy contract in accordance with provisions as written.
    In addition, the inured’s policy is non-ERISA, has no discretionary authority, and the policy says itself. With IDI state jurisdiction policies there is no “latitude” for Unum to decide anything except to enforce the actual policy language. IME provisions are exactly that and “examine the insured” DOES NOT include phone conversations or field visits.
    Based on my recommendation I refered this insured to an attorney who will soon take Unum’s demand for a phone conversation off the table. Once an attorney is involved with the claim “talking to the insured is a mute point” and Unum’s threat is null and void. How stupid can this claims handler be?
    I very rarely disclose the name of Unum’s claims handlers, but if anyone is interested, please send me an email and I’ll give you her name. The misrepresentation of a policy contract is blatant and Unum should be publicly held accountable for it.
    It’s clear to me that Unum needs to reign in some of its claims handlers particulary when it comes to this level of policy misrepresentation, which is really fraud. If it’s a manager who is directing the claims handler to do it, then the VP of claims should terminate the manager.
    This is a perfect example of the fact that Unum claims handlers and their managers are complicit in putting forth misrepresentations, in this case to deny a claim with financial reserves in excess of $1.5 M dollars.
    In any event, no insurer can use an old IME provision as a kitchen sink in which to throw every other authority to threaten an insured. If it weren’t such a serious offense it would actually be quite funny.
    Unum insureds need to be aware of what they are up against, and be willing to challenge such bad faith when policy provisions are deliberately and falsely used to threaten insureds into compliance.
    In my opinion, Unum’s actions constitute insurance fraud, committed by an insurance company, plain and simple.

Comments are closed.