Echo ED-210 

HyperLink

Write Your Review
Engine HP -n/a
Engine Displacment -21.2cc
Speed -0-450 F/R
Weight -10

Cordless convenience in a heavy-duty drill.

More  Augers / Drills
Stihl BT45 Wood Drill
Stihl BT45 Planting Auger
Stihl BT121 Earth Auger
Echo EA-500
Echo ED-200
Echo ED-210
Echo ED-2400
Echo ED-260


119
Review
Reviewed by:
General Comment: You th
Review Date
7/16/2015

Overall Rating: 1
Reliability: N/A
Performance: 3
Ease of Use: 4
Accessories: 1

Summary:
General Comment: You think the current findung system is broken but I have not followed your reasoning for this statement. Can you be more precise?I manage a council financial assessment team and although the regulations for charging for residential care and non-residential care could do with a few amendments to deal with several inequitable anomalies, on the whole, they require people with higher savings and income to pay more and people without such funds to pay less. Charges only apply to those who need services. In that sense, it is hard see how else the system could work. Of course, it could all be free to the service user and fully funded by taxpayers ( like the NHS) but this hardly seems fair to those who would have to pay higher taxes and who may never need such care themselves. In effect, one person would have to pay higher taxes now, in order to fund someone else’s relative so that they can inherit the family wealth. Where is the justice in that?Why is it seen as a good thing for family members to inherit their loved one’s wealth whilst the state (via taxpayers) pay for their care. Surely it is a good thing for people who can pay, to pay for their own care during their lifetime, any residual wealth can be inherited. Those who cannot pay must, of course, have a safety net funded by taxpayers, which is how the system works now.The main specific anomalies in the current system are :a) disregarding savings bonds with insuranceb) disregarding compensation funds for future care needs including disregarding trust fundsc) Woolly and unhelpful guidance on deliberate deprivation of assets to avoid future charges.People who are aware of these anomalous rules can take advantage of the system.Comments on the points listed above: C) The capping rules seemed exceptionally complex and difficult to adminster and I have not understand how it was intended to work for non-residential costs such as home care and day and direct payments. The cap system may only be workable for residential care costs?A simpler solution may be to increase the capital threshold as suggested and leave everything else as it is subject to some tidying rules.Separating living costs for residential care is also very confusing and complex. Many people have their current living costs funded by pension credit, Housing Benefit and Council tax. These are generally ceased or reduced once in residential care. This proposal seems to have 2 means tests, one to assess how much should be paid towards care and another to determine how much should be be paid towards living costs . Payments mad for the first test count towards a cap but payments made for the second test do not. Someone will need keep a running total of payments made under test 1 but not under test 2. The majority of people we see are assessed to pay around a3115 to a3130 based upon their pensions and benefits. I would guess that around 25% are self findung because they have over a323,250 and/or property. The minority of people pay something in between because they have a private pension that exceeds pension credit levels. I cannot see how we can get the lower charge people to pay any more, but we could have a more generous savings threshold so that the self-funding group pay less. In my view, the people in between should stay as they are, paying more than the lowest payers and less than self-funders. I would make a more radical suggestion for those receiving non-residential care which could, perhaps fund the deficit resulting from an increased savings threshold. That is, the means tests could be equitable with regard to property ownership – eg: no property disregard for home care and no disregards for residetial care – legal charges could apply where people cannot immediately fund care costs and the debt then falls to the estate to pay after the service user has died.a) I think the only strength in the proposal is that it might possibly spark more financing from insurance companies if people will take the risk of findung their future care through insurance rather than hoping it will never happen to them! Or, thinking that the NHS will pay so they don't need to fund it anyway.I think the disadvantages are:1. the cost to current taxpayers2. the complexity of two tier means tests3. the administrative burden of keeping a tally of expenditure and determining 4. when the cap has been reached5. the inequity of expecting today's young people to pay extra tax so that somebody else's relative can get free care whilst their own relatives might never need it.

Strengths:
General Comment: You think the current findung system is broken but I have not followed your reasoning for this statement. Can you be more precise?I manage a council financial assessment team and although the regulations for charging for residential care and non-residential care could do with a few amendments to deal with several inequitable anomalies, on the whole, they require people with higher savings and income to pay more and people without such funds to pay less. Charges only apply to those who need services. In that sense, it is hard see how else the system could work. Of course, it could all be free to the service user and fully funded by taxpayers ( like the NHS) but this hardly seems fair to those who would have to pay higher taxes and who may never need such care themselves. In effect, one person would have to pay higher taxes now, in order to fund someone else’s relative so that they can inherit the family wealth. Where is the justice in that?Why is it seen as a good thing for family members to inherit their loved one’s wealth whilst the state (via taxpayers) pay for their care. Surely it is a good thing for people who can pay, to pay for their own care during their lifetime, any residual wealth can be inherited. Those who cannot pay must, of course, have a safety net funded by taxpayers, which is how the system works now.The main specific anomalies in the current system are :a) disregarding savings bonds with insuranceb) disregarding compensation funds for future care needs including disregarding trust fundsc) Woolly and unhelpful guidance on deliberate deprivation of assets to avoid future charges.People who are aware of these anomalous rules can take advantage of the system.Comments on the points listed above: C) The capping rules seemed exceptionally complex and difficult to adminster and I have not understand how it was intended to work for non-residential costs such as home care and day and direct payments. The cap system may only be workable for residential care costs?A simpler solution may be to increase the capital threshold as suggested and leave everything else as it is subject to some tidying rules.Separating living costs for residential care is also very confusing and complex. Many people have their current living costs funded by pension credit, Housing Benefit and Council tax. These are generally ceased or reduced once in residential care. This proposal seems to have 2 means tests, one to assess how much should be paid towards care and another to determine how much should be be paid towards living costs . Payments mad for the first test count towards a cap but payments made for the second test do not. Someone will need keep a running total of payments made under test 1 but not under test 2. The majority of people we see are assessed to pay around a3115 to a3130 based upon their pensions and benefits. I would guess that around 25% are self findung because they have over a323,250 and/or property. The minority of people pay something in between because they have a private pension that exceeds pension credit levels. I cannot see how we can get the lower charge people to pay any more, but we could have a more generous savings threshold so that the self-funding group pay less. In my view, the people in between should stay as they are, paying more than the lowest payers and less than self-funders. I would make a more radical suggestion for those receiving non-residential care which could, perhaps fund the deficit resulting from an increased savings threshold. That is, the means tests could be equitable with regard to property ownership – eg: no property disregard for home care and no disregards for residetial care – legal charges could apply where people cannot immediately fund care costs and the debt then falls to the estate to pay after the service user has died.a) I think the only strength in the proposal is that it might possibly spark more financing from insurance companies if people will take the risk of findung their future care through insurance rather than hoping it will never happen to them! Or, thinking that the NHS will pay so they don't need to fund it anyway.I think the disadvantages are:1. the cost to current taxpayers2. the complexity of two tier means tests3. the administrative burden of keeping a tally of expenditure and determining 4. when the cap has been reached5. the inequity of expecting today's young people to pay extra tax so that somebody else's relative can get free care whilst their own relatives might never need it.

Weaknesses:
General Comment: You think the current findung system is broken but I have not followed your reasoning for this statement. Can you be more precise?I manage a council financial assessment team and although the regulations for charging for residential care and non-residential care could do with a few amendments to deal with several inequitable anomalies, on the whole, they require people with higher savings and income to pay more and people without such funds to pay less. Charges only apply to those who need services. In that sense, it is hard see how else the system could work. Of course, it could all be free to the service user and fully funded by taxpayers ( like the NHS) but this hardly seems fair to those who would have to pay higher taxes and who may never need such care themselves. In effect, one person would have to pay higher taxes now, in order to fund someone else’s relative so that they can inherit the family wealth. Where is the justice in that?Why is it seen as a good thing for family members to inherit their loved one’s wealth whilst the state (via taxpayers) pay for their care. Surely it is a good thing for people who can pay, to pay for their own care during their lifetime, any residual wealth can be inherited. Those who cannot pay must, of course, have a safety net funded by taxpayers, which is how the system works now.The main specific anomalies in the current system are :a) disregarding savings bonds with insuranceb) disregarding compensation funds for future care needs including disregarding trust fundsc) Woolly and unhelpful guidance on deliberate deprivation of assets to avoid future charges.People who are aware of these anomalous rules can take advantage of the system.Comments on the points listed above: C) The capping rules seemed exceptionally complex and difficult to adminster and I have not understand how it was intended to work for non-residential costs such as home care and day and direct payments. The cap system may only be workable for residential care costs?A simpler solution may be to increase the capital threshold as suggested and leave everything else as it is subject to some tidying rules.Separating living costs for residential care is also very confusing and complex. Many people have their current living costs funded by pension credit, Housing Benefit and Council tax. These are generally ceased or reduced once in residential care. This proposal seems to have 2 means tests, one to assess how much should be paid towards care and another to determine how much should be be paid towards living costs . Payments mad for the first test count towards a cap but payments made for the second test do not. Someone will need keep a running total of payments made under test 1 but not under test 2. The majority of people we see are assessed to pay around a3115 to a3130 based upon their pensions and benefits. I would guess that around 25% are self findung because they have over a323,250 and/or property. The minority of people pay something in between because they have a private pension that exceeds pension credit levels. I cannot see how we can get the lower charge people to pay any more, but we could have a more generous savings threshold so that the self-funding group pay less. In my view, the people in between should stay as they are, paying more than the lowest payers and less than self-funders. I would make a more radical suggestion for those receiving non-residential care which could, perhaps fund the deficit resulting from an increased savings threshold. That is, the means tests could be equitable with regard to property ownership – eg: no property disregard for home care and no disregards for residetial care – legal charges could apply where people cannot immediately fund care costs and the debt then falls to the estate to pay after the service user has died.a) I think the only strength in the proposal is that it might possibly spark more financing from insurance companies if people will take the risk of findung their future care through insurance rather than hoping it will never happen to them! Or, thinking that the NHS will pay so they don't need to fund it anyway.I think the disadvantages are:1. the cost to current taxpayers2. the complexity of two tier means tests3. the administrative burden of keeping a tally of expenditure and determining 4. when the cap has been reached5. the inequity of expecting today's young people to pay extra tax so that somebody else's relative can get free care whilst their own relatives might never need it.

Used product for 3+ Years
Purchased From General Comment: You think the current findung s
Submit a Review for Echo's ED-210
Strengths
Weaknesses
Overall
Low                                      High
Overall Score  
 
 

Purchased From

Your Name


Ease of Use
Relibility
Performance
Accessories
Used For