ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
to ask why should I pay for someone else's mum's care home?(328 Posts)
I was just reading my DM's copy of The Express (I like to raise my blood pressure every so often) and came across this article: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/368525
It is an article about spending money that we give to the EU on old age care. There is a case study bit in it where a woman is complaining that they had to sell her mum's £140,000 bungalow to pay her £100,000 costs in a care home.
Am I missing something here? Why should I, as a taxpayer, pay for her mum's care home when she has enough money to cover it herself? It wasn't like her mother was ever going to leave the care home and move back home, so why not sell it?
..and yes I am prepared to care for them if needed as long as would be medically possible.
sorry, just noticed you said that it could be cured - doh! so no.
I do think the differences between what illness you have are ridiculous. I'm on drugs to fight my cancer, which, because it's cancer, I don't have to pay for, yet some other people, who have repeat prescriptions for different problems, have to pay for each repeat prescription ~ why should that be? This is just magnified with elderly people needing care being charged in some cases, and being looked after for free in others - nothing to do with their financial circumstances, but everythng to do with what illness or disability happened to befall them.
The way our society is set up it is difficult to look after our elderly in our own family homes, we will either have to change the way we live as a society or face the consequences.
If that means we start paying more taxes then that is what we will have to do, or we start looking after our own elderly at home and one family member doesn't work and is given an allowance above the poverty line.
The pyramid should be pointed at the top representing elderly population and large at the bottom representing young babies - it is turned around now and going to get bigger at the top with no babies being born to pay for elderly care, this problem isn't going to go away
soverylucky you made some very good points which I agree with, so I guess for me it does seem to be more of an inheritance question really.
Sirzy Just bleed them dry so they can have their basic care? but you're not bleeding them dry are you? You might be accused of bleeding their children dry by using up their inheritance, but if you can't look after your own parents at home then shouldn't you expect to at least contribute to their care financially?
Ofcourse the other way round this that hasn't yet been suggested is that if you can't afford your own care then your dependents/children are asked to pay. And only then if you have no assets and no relations then you get state funding. The only fair thing to do is make everyone pay or make it free.
Can you tell Im feeling quite cynical today? I wouldn't put it past some bright spark in government to come up with this.
Oh no Op - you don't get to stay in hosptial for the rest of your life, you get cured and have to go back to work - but the person in the next bed gets all their treatment for free as they don't have any assets. Would you think that fair?
I have elderly friends where he had to put his wife into care and now has sold his home as it was an assets - how do you think he felt? If they had lived in social housing then he would have got to stay there - but now lives in B&B
The only way to fund it would be for everyone to up a lot more taxes, probably something like 40% being the base rate of tax. Most people wouldn't be prepared to pay that, because after all they work really hard for their money and why shouldn't they. Same argument for inheriting the money.
The thing that disgusts me in these debates - and I think it is the same with the OP, is that they claim to be about improving elderly care but actually they are all about money and greed.
I work as a care manager for the elderly with SS, and what has really made me uncomfortable recently is that we are asked to get the people who can pay for their own care off our books. So not only do they have to pay the full cost, they get no support, no reviews etc from social services. Whereas the people who get help paying for their care are meant to have a 6 monthly review of their care (more like every 18 months due to high case loads) to ensure they are receiving the right level of support. Makes me feel that there really is no level of equality.
I fully intend on putting my home in my childrens names before I get old (you must do this over 7 years before needing care), and spend all I can on having a great life. There really is no point in saving.
ivykate that can't be right about your friend, if a partner falls ill and needs to go into a home, but the other partner still lives at home (or any dependants) the home cannot be considered an asset and is disregarded when working out who pays the costs.
I am not sure it is all about money and greed.
it is the penalising of the prudent
The problem is that there isn't one fair answer - and you can be assured if there was, the govt would find a way to make it unfair!
My children go to private school and we have private healthcare - can I get some money back from the government? I certainly don't want to have to pay for other people to receive an education or get better when they are ill.
Ilovemastime - you are a disgrace.
I suppose one of the problem's I have is that we are constantly told that we don't have enough money to support the welfare state in this country, and that we will have to make these huge cuts to benefits. From what I've read on MN, these changes will hurt a lot of the people who I consider the welfare state is there for, e.g. disabled people. So when I see people who can afford something complaining about having to pay for it, it annoys me.
At the same time, I do want things like the NHS, police and education to stay free for all. However, if it came down to having to choose between benefits/free healthcare for the poorest or a completely free NHS for everyone than I would still always give the money to the poorest.
Does that make sense, I may be babbling now, but at least the shaking has calmed down
You are correct fluffygal. I am in two minds about this. We have just sold our grandmother's home to pay for care fees. There was one member of the family who was trying to find a way to avoid this and this was purely to protect their inheritence.
Why are some people making out wanting to leave things for your children is so wrong? Surely every parent wants to be able to leave an inheritance for their children and grandchildren? Thats nothing to do with greed in most cases.
Its very uncomfy how some people are trying to imply that is a bad thing.
This is a subject that really winds me up. I don't see how it is fair that one person should have to pay because they have made wise financial decisions but someone who hasn't gets exactly the same care for free.
I'm another that fully intends to spend what I have in my lifetime, either on myself or my children. I refuse to let there be anything left to pay for care if I need it while the system remains so unfair.
In the future only people who absolutely need to be in 24 hour care will be in 24 hour care - the push at the moment is to keep people in their own homes or the community for as long as possible, using home care and telecare and this is an increasing area of development.
Having money and assets means choice, you are funding/ paying and therefore you get a certain amount of choice where you go. If the state is paying there is no choice and you will be provided with the cheapest service. Just like state funded health and education.
If your needs are primarily health rather than social care then you may be eligible for fully funded state care in a nursing home no matter how much money you have (this is called fully funded continuing healthcare) and continues the idea that 'healthcare is free at the point of access' in this country.
Only assets over around £23k are taken into account for someone to have to pay full costs, and in the case of property if there is someone else living there the property will be disregarded. Under £23k in assets/ savings and a contribution towards costs may then be made by the state.
Unfortunately many families make silly decisions based on misinformation they get from the press/ out of date information/ legal firms offering asset protection.
ivykate44 Oh no Op - you don't get to stay in hosptial for the rest of your life, you get cured and have to go back to work - but the person in the next bed gets all their treatment for free as they don't have any assets. Would you think that fair? - no. I think I said that.
I have elderly friends where he had to put his wife into care and now has sold his home as it was an assets - I think I have also said that I think that this is wrong too.
It isn't penalising the prudent though.
My grandparents were prudent and hard working, but they never earnt enough to own their own home. that doesn't make them feckless!
It is expecting those who can pay to pay.
I don't expect or feel entitled to any money from my extended family. It is theirs, not mine.
I have elderly friends where he had to put his wife into care and now has sold his home as it was an assets
That's not true.
amber -my paternal grandparents didn't own their own home - but my grandmother still paid for her own care - didn't make her feckless either
She must have had amazing savings then Ivykaty?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.