Fed up of reading threads asking how they can get out of paying care home fees.

This thread is a strong argument for why private equity firms should not be making profits off care homes -whether that's direct profits to shareholders or profits from charging the management company extremely high interest on loans.

As usually the really rich screwing over everyone else.

The staff should be paid very well so it's an attractive career, but no profits.

However, in terms of the hole in Local Authority finances, social services were a total useless waste of time in terms of the actual risk my relative posed to themselves and others (the police and paramedics on the other hand were great - though there was a cost to them also of the SS failures). It would have been actually much better for all involved if they hadn't existed at all, as they just impeded, minimised and said they'd do things and didn't, so there does need to be accountability for SS money being used properly and actually doing the job they're paid to as well. It is possible to pump millions into the public sector and nothing very much to improve without accountability. We've seen this so many times with insanely high manager salaries in the NHS and no actual accountability for real failures including deaths. We should be getting value for money from public services, and our interactions with social services were that in our specific case they could have cut the entire 'service' we received (there were endless phone calls and meetings though no action which no doubt cost a lot) and we'd have been better off.

The right wing media and those who comment on right wing media platforms are always making this criticism of the poor, regardless of whether they work or not. It's constant. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't know this?

Thing is that if you are in a home for more than a couple of years you can become one of those who HAD assets, and is then moved on to state funding anyhow when they are all used up.

MIL will run out of money in 2027 (if she lives that long) if her house sells for the estate agent valuation - allowing for 4% nursing home fee increase annually.

Not every self funder has houses worth megabucks.

I would imagine they would fall loosely into the category of 'the rich', so no, they are most definitely deserving of nothing but contempt on MN

This! '"We can’t just always consider the rights of those with nothing without also considering the rights of those with something." Brilliantly put!

And it's true for so many things now - at some point it does feel unfair that the hard working 'in the middle' who are not poor but still not super rich, are continually being asked to pay ever more taxes (including VAT on schools etc).

But also, the profit margins most care homes (private) are operating at are insanely high! It's immoral really and shouldn't be allowed; same with children's care homes. Maybe there should be something similar to charity status for care homes, with a limit of how much can be taken out in profits?

Totally agree with this. People with assets are not the enemy, despite what MNetters would have us believe.
It's all very lovely talking about caring for those with nothing, caring for the poorer, caring for the disadvantaged, but someone has to pay. And those who do are castigated. It's madness.

So why are those that have also worked and paid but have managed to accrue assets less deserving?

I haven't read anything from anyone that nails the poster's colours to the right -wing mast.
Or you just using the term as a lazy, go-to insult?

I didn't think the couples home was taken into account for care home fees if the spouse/partner was still living there

We're talking about assets, not contributions.

You can have worked hard your whole life, have paid taxes for decades, and still have no home of your own.

Does this make you less deserving?

I agree that there is too much hysteria about this subject. Everyone assumes they are going to end up in a Nursing home for year - in reality, this won't be the case for the majority of us.

Neither of my parents went into a Nursing home, neither did my FIL. My MIL went into a care home aged 90 and was there for 18 months before she died. She was self-funding and we were able to find a lovely place for her to live out her final months

Irrespective of circumstances it still stands that those who have assets have to use them to pay for their own care AND to top up the fees of those who don’t pay anything.
We can’t just always consider the rights of those with nothing without also considering the rights of those with something.

I think if we’re going to go on this way, there needs to be a conversation about improving care homes and making it a universal benefit - that everyone gets it paid.

If we think people shouldn’t have to pay for their care home costs I mean.

Otherwise we are going to have to get really tough on people hiding their assets, passing them on early etc. It’s not right that people think they’ve got a right to “their inheritance” when there are care home fees to be paid, unless we said “well that’s for everyone”.

But I think making it universal would be unfair as it passes the cost on to those with who have less.

The problem is, people don’t want to pay more tax to make it universal, and at the same time want to be the exception to the rule and not pay their own.

No idea.
I suppose they’d have to take control of the money and house etc.
If it got that far there would be a court case, in order to prove intent. Assuming of course the person was denying it.

How, I wonder, do you prove what someone is thinking and who would be so stupid as to lay that down in writing. ?

My question too. I have a relative who was fit as a fiddle which meant they lived an extremely long life. The last few years had to be in care though, purely because of how old and therefore frail they were, not because of their health as such.

Because one person’s care fees can easily add up to more than the family home is worth. From a self-funding point of view, it may make no difference if their spouse develops dementia or not. The first person’s care costs will have wiped out the family assets (even if the family home doesn’t have to be sold until they’ve both moved out).

If only 10% of people will need to self-fund I'm not sure how that translates to something that will affect 20% of families.

But if only one person in a couple needs a care home, that’s still likely to result in the loss of the family home. Both of my grandmothers had dementia and neither of my parents inherited more than a low four-figure sum as a result. So, I’d estimate that 20% of families will end up in this situation.

I completely agree that we should pool the risk the same way we do with healthcare.

I wonder if those figures will change now there is more need, younger generations (I mean people in their 50s and 60s now) do not have a prejudice against care homes and, indeed, are willing to accept them and cannot or will not do the care themselves (me included). More people will use them so I can’t see it staying as 90% not needing care homes

There are around 450,000 care home places in the UK with half of the places publicly funded. The turnover of patients is relatively rapid as the average stay is about 2.5 years. It's no more than 1 in 5 of us who will ever need a care home & only half of us will self-fund which means that only 10% of people will ever need to pay care home fees.

Bottom line is that 90% of people will never need to pay care home fees but it can be very expensive for the 10% who do. The obvious answer is to pool risk just as we do with the health service. We all pay taxes then if we need it medical care is free at point of delivery. Providing social care on the same basis is easily affordable.

You seem to be generalising from your own experience, which may not be representative. It certainly isn't representative of my extended family. My great-grandmother, born around 1880, had dementia for several years before dying at 92. I can't remember if she was in a nursing home at the end but before that her daughters took it in turn to have her living with them and it took a tremendous toll on all of them. That was in the early 1970s.

I can remember this being talked about when I was a child. It was unusual to have such an elderly relative and also to have a family member with dementia, but it was far from unknown.

I am no expert on this area, but I would guess that the reason there's so much more dementia now is simply because it is (mostly) a disease of old age and most people didn't live long enough to suffer from it until recently. As has been mentioned before on this very long thread, people used to die long before they reached 80 from cancer, heart disease, diabetes and all sorts of other illnesses that are now treatable, childhood illnesses that are now prevented by vaccination and public health measures, in accidents or in wars. Frankly, in many cases, they were lucky not to live to extreme old age with poor quality of life.

In other words by being equally “feckless”.

I agree. I have no children and selling my home is part of my plan for my future care, but going by the logic of some here I should just liquidate and spend all my money on cruises otherwise I’ll be subsidising the care of those feckless non self funders.

With dementia, though, the care needed is usually mostly non medical - help with washing, dressing, ‘toileting’ as they like to call it - maybe eating and drinking. Plus someone there to reassure when the person is anxious/confused/frightened of something they can’t even name.

None of which needs doctors, nurses, or any degree,just care workers who we hope will be kind and sympathetic.

Totally agree. My family have a genetic propensity towards breast cancer, my DH family, heart valve issues (his dads side) and coeliac and dementia (his mums side).

Don't know any of my family with dementia. Currently MIL, her sister and niece are all suffering. Her mum and aunt also had it.