Advanced search

To think the 70 cap on care home fees is too high

(94 Posts)
Pprice Thu 29-Jan-15 08:15:17

I think it needs to be nearly half this amount as 70000 is a very high amount for people to have sitting around. Most will still have to seel their homes and this 70000/spent doesn't include lots of things so many will end up spending way more before the NHS steps in.

Babycham1979 Thu 29-Jan-15 14:02:33

Sorry OP, your post doesn't really make sense. You say that the threshold should be half this amount, but then seem to complain that people may be forced to sell their house. Which is it?

The whole point of the threshold is because there isn't enough public money to look after the elderly (and we're living longer and longer); it's a form of rationing/means-testing as much as it is co-payment.

The key principle is that healthcare is 100% free, social care (ie to help you live a normal 'healthy' life) is not. We regularly hear the complaint that 'it's not fair' people have to sell their house to pay for THEIR OWN care. My question would be, why buy the bloody house then, if it's not for your own comfort/security?

keepitsimple0 Thu 29-Jan-15 14:24:47

I think the OP is making sense (@Baby's comment). I understand what she is seeing.

But I agree with Baby. If you have assets, why should someone else pay?

trulybadlydeeply Thu 29-Jan-15 14:33:27

Bear in mind though that the cap of £72,000 is only for care costs not care home costs. People will still have to contribute up to £12,000 per annum for hotel costs, if they have it.

silveroldie2 Thu 29-Jan-15 15:45:37

It seems sensible to me. I fully expect to have to sell my home and fund my own care initially as and when required, and see no problem with that.

NickyEds Thu 29-Jan-15 16:23:45

Why should, say, a 25 year old tax payer pay for your care? If you have the means to pay then you should. When you're younger you work to pay for your rent/bills etc, when you retire your savings/assets pay for your care/bills etc. The only people I really hear complain about this are those who stand to get a big pile of unearned (by them)cash from their parents when they die.

PtolemysNeedle Thu 29-Jan-15 16:30:18

Care should be funded because it's a medical need. And it is fully funded for some people, who are no more special than anyone else, so it should be fully funded for everyone.

Accommodation costs are different, and they shouldn't be any more than an average rent. But it has to be the same for everyone. I think it's really unfair that some people are charged more than others when they have the same needs.

I won't be getting a big pile of cash when my remaining parent dies, but I will be making sure that my children get my house and not the government.

hiddenhome Thu 29-Jan-15 16:35:07

I think it's unfair that people who have been careful with money are penalised by having to liquidate their assets to fund their care when others get it for free.

betweenmarchandmay Thu 29-Jan-15 16:41:17

I agree hidden.

It is also worth pointing out that pay and conditions in many homes for the workers are appalling.

What's the answer? Well, as people are fond of pointing out on benefit threads, the money is there. Easy to shrug and state that that is what (my our home) is there for - no, it isn't. People who don't need care are able to pass it on to the next generation, people who do, don't - that isn't fair. I lost my dad to a heart attack and inherited his house. If I die from dementia, why should my children not benefit?

The issue isn't care. It's the lack of consistency applied which penalises those who own property disproportionately.

aprilanne Thu 29-Jan-15 16:44:26

well in scotland they say our care is free .like hell it is .my grandfather had to sell everything .they took his pension private pension.and left him £22.30 a week for toilitries clothes haircuts that kind of thing .good job we are a close family and just buy him things he needs .BUT i believe if you have the capital the taxpayer should NOT foot the bill .

PtolemysNeedle Thu 29-Jan-15 16:47:22

What about if you could have had the capital, but chose to spend your money on holidays, cars and shoes instead of savings, investments or a mortgage .

Hamiltoes Thu 29-Jan-15 16:47:54

I would rather see a system where say, instead of the 25 year olds funding care for the elderly... First time buyers (assuming everyones end goal is to purchase property at some point in their life) are given a grant for their initial deposit, and when they need care when they are older they sell their home, a large percentage funds their care and a small percentage goes to the next generation of first time buyers to start their home (/carefund) journey.

It doesn't feel right to me that my youth is spent paying for the elderly, and my elderly years will be spent subsidised by my children and grandchildren. Why can't we turn the whole thing on its head, and give everyone an equal start in life, regardless of wether they were born into poverty or royalty.

Who knows maybe it would never work and i'm just being idealistic as usual wink

Hamiltoes Thu 29-Jan-15 16:49:30

Edit* the point i'm making is I don't see why any of it should be safeguarded while the state pays for your care. If you have any assets, they should be used. You can't spend wealth in the grave and if my system was in place, no body would need to worry about an inheritance for their children.

MythicalKings Thu 29-Jan-15 16:52:50

Following the logic of some posters well-off parents shouldn't have the care needs of DCs with SNs paid for. Why should the healthy tax-paying elderly pay for the care of other people's DCs in their taxes if the parents have money already?

mywholelifeisaheadache Thu 29-Jan-15 16:53:45

I think people need to read into it a bit more as the limit comes with restrictions such as it's £70k BUT at the rate your council will pay, so if you blow £70k on a really pricey home in one year, tough, you'll still have to pay for subsequent years because the council will only fund x amount.

Or that's how I've read it when I've been looking into it for my grandparents

betweenmarchandmay Thu 29-Jan-15 16:57:18

I like that idea, hamil

mousmous Thu 29-Jan-15 16:59:34

at least direct relatives are not yet responsible gor footing the bill as us the case in other countries...

NickyEds Thu 29-Jan-15 17:02:06

but I will be making sure that my children get my house and not the government.
and someone else's children (who may not have the benefit of an inheritance) will pay for your care??

Hamiltoes Thu 29-Jan-15 17:03:30

Mythical it's completely different. The older generations should pay for DCs with special needs through taxation because I believe every child should have the best start in life. We should all be born equal, reach adult maturity equal, and we should all die equal. Its not really the same is it? Comparing the youth being burdened with the care of the elderly when in some cases they are capable of providing care themselves, to the elderly making sure all children wether special needs or not are given the best start in life so they can grow and provide for future generations.

Hamiltoes Thu 29-Jan-15 17:07:19

Nicky well thats the childrens fault for being born into a family who is too poor to provide them with a lavish inheritance isn't it hmm /s

Seriously people, why should others children pay for your care so you can stash your money away and lavish it on your own when you die confused

MythicalKings Thu 29-Jan-15 17:09:09

I disagree. Either all those with adequate finances pay for their care or that of their children or none do. That's equality. From the cradle to the grave was the promise, no exceptions.

mywholelifeisaheadache Thu 29-Jan-15 17:12:08

Cradle to grave is unsustainable.

You pay for the living costs of the property you live in. So if that's a care home then you pay it and the fees and bills that come from living in that home. It's not like I can move house and then expect the state to pay for one of my homes just so I can give it to my children when I die.

Hamiltoes Thu 29-Jan-15 17:13:59

Those with adequate finances are already paying for their children's care through higher rate taxation.

mywholelifeisaheadache Thu 29-Jan-15 17:15:23

Thems the breaks of working in a high salary job.

Girlwithnotattoos Thu 29-Jan-15 17:18:08

There will be plenty who still manage to avoid paying, they'll do what they do now and transfer assets such as property to their children. It will only be the ones who haven't done this who will end up paying - just like nowhmm

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: