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

Same way we pay for nursery if our children need to be looked after whilst we are work. If you are unable to physically or mentally care for yourself independently and your family is unable or unwilling to do it you have to buy that care in. Which means paying for it or other tax payers subsidising or paying for it.

People need to prepare for their latter years both financially and physically to reduce the burden on the State.

But not having a wage doesn't mean you have no money. Self funders have assets. Once those assets run out, they'll be in the 'for free' category.

It's not as though an elderly person in residential care is losing money they will need when they get better. It's not as though self-funders get booted on to the street if they run out of money, whilst others who never had the money still get care.

Look, I'm not saying it shouldn't change at all, but fundamentally, one way or another, whatever system we use will involve some people paying more than others, as the NHS does because you pay more NI if you earn more. And some people will never pay at all.

Because care needs money. It has to come from somewhere. It can't come from the people who have none. And there will always be people who cannot or simply do not earn, or don't earn as much.

I can't remember exactly how it came about but I'm pretty sure neither of us asked, the owner volunteered the information, possibly to make it clear that if funding ran out MIL would have to move, I don't know. All I can remember was we were having a cup of tea in her office and she told us.

To be fair, she was different to the other owners/managers we came across, she was very open and had high expectations of everyone, especially her staff. She also treated them well, I can remember her threatening to ban BIL and SIL from visiting because they were so rude to her staff.

But I will need them if I need care. You’re saying it’s a state benefit I can’t have even if I need it.

That’s very different though.
People who need to go into a care home need to because they need care. They can’t live alone anymore.
They can’t work so don’t have a wage so shouldn’t be required to pay for care. ( with the exception on their monthly/ yearly income ) It’s completely different to your comparison of UC and thresholds when people can work to earn more. The elderly can’t!

Lots of kids with adhd and mh issues get paid money for their care
They have parents
The elderly don’t

Those with no assets get care homes for free. So everyone should have access to exactly the same LA funds to support their care. If they then wish to top up with some savings fine.
Tbh at this stage I think the very least LAs should do is provide equal financing for all. Personally I wouldn’t be bothered if I had to top it up after means testing as long as I’m treated equally by my LA.

The Government acknowledge the system is grossly unfair on self funders.

I don't disagree we need an overhaul.

No. That isn't what I said. Read my opening paragraph again. Think of it like state benefits. Do you expect to get those when you don't need them? I don't know about you, but I don't expect to get universal credit when I am above the threshold for needing it. I don't expect to get it because I have paid in. I expect to get it IF I am unfortunate enough to NEED it. It's a safety net. That's what it is for. It would be like saying just because I COULD pay my mortgage, I shouldn't have had to because some people get government money to pay rent.

Yes, there are some statewide benefits such as education and the NHS. Education was a bad original example on my part, I admit, but it was just an example of the fact we are all paying in some way into a system for things we might never need. Like universal credit, for example. Because I have enough money to live on, I don't expect the government to hand me the cash anyway, because somebody else gets it and I don't.

As I said, I think we should have an NI system for care, but whilst we haven't, yes, those of us that can pay, should do so.

Not the ones I visited when we were choosing. For three relatives in different counties in England

My MIL only knew how many were self funders because she asked everyone. 🤣. …….
I asked all the homes we visited but none would tell me.

What ARE you inferring? I’m talking about my mum who is in hell of a state with dementia and dies none of the nice ‘fluffy’ things you are saying! Yes she’s distraught! Just saw her! If you want to imagine dementia is fun then I’ll give you my mums address so you can see. Idiot .

I was simply suggesting an alternative system. One that treats everyone equally.
Its very similar to a system used in some Scandinavian countries for education.

Currently if you look at the charts on spending by age groups it’s the increase in 18-64 year olds that is having a significant effect on available finances to LAs. This spending is largely down to the increase in mental health diagnosis in these age groups. Generally those with physical disabilities have remained stable although claims have also increased.
We may find with Labour's recent proposals on spending in this area less with be spent on this age group. That’s their plan anyway.

Then
Its time to look at an over haul of the system for elderly care. Of note. There are Govn reports online on the parliamentary website going back years and even they accept that charging self funders extortionately more than LAs pay is immoral

So by the same score I can pay for private health, I should have paid for my children’s education. Because I could.
remind me why I pay tax and paid national insurance for 40 years.. because by your thinking because I have assets I should be paying for everything.

With MIL, we have just seen it as she is living in a home being taken good care of. She no longer needs a house.

Yes, other people pay less... for exactly the same thing... usually because they have less to give.

If my parents had needed care, theirs would have been funded... as they had nothing. They worked hard but were poor.

The state would have given them a safety net... unless I am mistaken, their pension would still have been taken towards it every week ... except for 30 odd quid. They would not have ended up in any better position in the end. They had nothing to begin with.

Because we can. Support is there for those that can't. Think of it like the benefits system, rather than like the NHS. You pay for it, but would only claim/be entitled to claim if you NEED it.

If either of us get there and despite all our careful planning, we simply don't have enough. Things happen, we might need care sooner or for longer than we imagined. That support will be there for us if we NEED it. I am really not sure why that doesn't make sense to you. It doesn't make sense to ME for the government to pay for my care if I can pay for my own at the end of my life. It's not like I am going to get better and need that money to live on in the future, is it?

I mean, I get people want to leave it to their children, but there are other ways you can help to ensure your children don't need that money when you die. I don't expect an inheritance, myself.

I just don't understand the desire to cling on to money you won't need where you are ultimately going, just for the sake of someone else not having it. Because that's what it comes down to, when all's said and done.

That said, I do think there should be an NI scheme for this. I just doubt very much that the types of people who are looking for ways to hide their money so their kids can inherit are going to be keen on the tax increase to do that. And there will still be people who haven't paid anything in, and we'd still be talking about 'why should they get this. They haven't worked' etc.

Thanks for this. I've no idea, to be honest, I just used this as an example of a wider issue around the fairness or otherwise of the funding for care in later life.

I'm just fed up, to be honest, that Labour, Tories and Reform simply seem to have no interest in actively pursuing this issue.

Politicians are meant to deal with difficult issues, not avoid them. Perhaps if we have a minority government at the next election the Lib Dems will have a voice on this. Rant over!

Thanks for the insights. I've no idea whether they had CHC funding, perhaps this was it. Of course who does or doesn't receive CHC funding is another debate which politicians are kicking into the long grass ... anyway, thanks for the insights.

It's been mentioned a couple of times but not that often - self-funding may give you more choice of place, but most importantly, it gives you more choice of timing.

DM is likely to go into a home shortly- if she wasn't self-funding, I am pretty sure the LA would discharge her from hospital into her own house with a package of 4 care visits a day.

She would then sit around terrified of having another fall. But because she is self-funding, she can decide to spend her money on a home rather than care visits.

But it's quite possible they'd tell you like MIL's care home did

But that makes no sense. I don’t object to paying for the common good. I don’t use schools or nurseries, I don’t need benefits. But if you or I had a child we would. Or needed the nhs. Or suddenly became disabled or homeless we would.
Bit we get old and need care? We can pay. Why?

Yes, agreed, but right now we don't have that system, we have a system based on need. So my question is, until the brave new dawn where a system which won't bankrupt the country or mean upping everyone's taxes is introduced, what do we do with those who don't have the money?

Here we go again!

In MNet land, no one in the later stages of dementia ever enjoys telling long rambling stories in which their own grandparents are still around, or chats to other residents, or enjoys listening to live Christmas carols, or jokes about Dove shower gel being made of Doves, or laughs uproariously while balancing cushions on their head.

Everyone is always distressed, anxious or aggressive.

But in terms of finance, you don't NEED the same. That's my point. That's what social security is for. Those who need it, regardless of why they need it.

I don't need benefit payments. Should I have them simply because I have paid more in? I don't need education or nursery hours because I don't have children? Should I have a monthly rebate because it's not fair I don't get something I don't need? Be nice if I did, but a bit of a pointless waste of state money, don't you think?

Or treat everyone equally.

A system where everyone has an allowance to spend
Currently the average including state pension plus LA money is approx £22,000

So give everyone £22,000 and allow them to spend it on care.
Those that have money top it up with their own

That way everyone gets the same from LAs but those with assets still top it up and so the homes can still survive. There are many Govn reports showing homes rely on self founders as LAs don’t pay enough.

Agree
Care homes don’t publish the stats of how they are funded.

Doing away with cottage hospitals was a big mistake. It has led to bed blocking in hospitals, and councils paying for people (without means) to go to private care homes.

For the millionth time, a “nice” care home is not an option if someone’s needs exceed what they can provide, or they just don’t fancy the bother. A truly “demented” person has few options. They’re not going in the liveried van to Waitrose or the garden centre, or doing chair yoga.

Unfortunately it doesn’t work like that! It’s all a total muddle and distressing