Where should the cost burden for care of the elderly lie in society - with the state or individual

[mids2019]

I was watching an item on a politics show about the long standing problem of funding elderly care. There was some woman who was strongly critical of the funding middle as her mother had to swell her house to find care home fees. Could one argue that the parent had no need for her house with regrettably a very small chance of return so it is fair for that a set to be used in paying for free instead of the tax payer picking up the cost? It was an elephant in the room during the interview but the person losing the most in the scenario was the daughter who ultimately would inherit less but obviously this was not said.

I don't think there is a simple answer hence successive governments pushing this into touch but where should the cost burden lie, the state of the indiividual?

I think this subject is really co.implicated by the fact that we have universally free healthcare yet a private model for social care. There really is a sinking here. Hospitals will in future not be able to fill in for shortcomings of social care and there are many cases of the elderly taking up beds in hospitals as they can't be discharged without an adequate care package and I wonder if these cars packages are materialistic because of cost? We also get the situation where specialist nursing care is free yet caring in a care home is not so how do we square that circle?

The thread has morphed from anyone in a care home irrespective of needs and should it be free or paid for.
The issue of more complex needs and how to pay has evolved. It’s not OPs question though

omg, did you read your post back before you submitted it

No the point is everyone should get it freeeeeeeee

It isn't 'freeeeeeeee' (gosh, aren't you the edgy one!) when someone has been paying into the system for their entire life. That's how state assistance works ffs.

Yep, Labour have changed the 86k cap I believe

No
If some have state funded care then everyone should get the same

Although in the long run I think having an insurance policy would be worth investigating …….. but again, some won’t have one.

So
If you need help to live ( for whatever reason and whatever age you are ) everyone should be equal in how your care is funded.

I thought it would be obvious but, if it isn't, ill health is not a choice whether it's MND, cancer, post natal depression, heart disease, sickle cell anaemia, Parkinsons, celebral palsy, haemacromatosis, or dementia. Dementia seems to be singular in that it's a health condition, like other health conditions, you don't choose to have but some people seem to think you should not be publicly funded for this health condition.

Dementia patients are discriminated against
There should be more done , but I'm not holding my breath on it.
I wished it was more in the mainstream how badly they are treated in comparison to others with different diseases and diagnosis.

@GranPepper

I think people would prefer equality
If someone needs care because of a health condition, a disability, unable to care for themselves, age related decline …..whatever
It should be free
Not just a small list of health conditions
Once someone reaches a point that they can’t care for themselves everyone should be equal, funding wise. As some have no money to pay then none should be required to do so.

I think it's because it can last a long time and costs a lot of money for care. That means people lose their inheritance. They're not thinking about the NHS they're concerned that care is eating away at their inheritance.

Faux concern about elder poverty is exactly that.

It's a lovely pipe dream, but only that. If you can pay, you can choose. If you can't pay, you will get whatever/wherever has a vacancy. And if you are self funding, you will also be paying a chunk towards a person who has fewer resources and lower ability than you.

I’m sure lots feel that way
but at it’s root
It’s the lack of equality

I am fairly sure the state is too stretched already to fund senior care long term.

An uncle of mines went into a very nice looking carehome. He had a massive room, big bay window, fantastic views of the sea, big wet room. You had to be self funding for at least three years and then if you ran out of money you could stay on at council rates but in the cheaper, smaller rooms round the back. They were very upfront about it. I’m sure it varies they only accepted self funders though so the kindness was not kicking you completely.

That’s so not true.
My MIL had only one choice at the only place that had an available room out of many many homes up to 40 miles from her home.
She had a tiny room, one of the smallest, and was self funding.

You are quite right though. The home told us that the extra money went towards paying for those who weren’t self funded.
Which we were told by our MP that they are not allowed to do ( ten years ago )

I just don't agree. Dementia is a health condition. It's like saying there are health conditions that "deserve to be treated" and dementia "that doesn't". To say people are just money grubs not interested in their elderly relatives and just bothered about their inheritance is beyond horrible

That’s really nasty of them.

How do you know?

Really? That was not our experience. Self-funding DMIL paid about £4.5k per month. I do know this, as I ran her banking app. The LA paid about £2.2k per resident, per month.

@Hemorrhoids , it was public record. Self-funders subsidise coincil funded residents.