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?

See my comment above @Hemorrhoids
they admitted it.
My MIL even had to buy her own chair. They said she needed a special one that helps you get up even though they had loads of those.
She paid for one and she told us they sat someone else in it all the time ( which we had noticed ) so she was still struggling. Feisty woman had it moved to her room.

Things may be different now, but I worked in enough of them and they were all awful to varying degrees.

"greedy ones don't" undermines your own argument that self funders don't always cross subsidise state funded people. I've seen many claims that self funders subsidise state funded people from people like BBC journalists, MPs and others. It isn't just "home managers" saying this. My relative who went on to develop dementia unfortunately also worked in a Care Home and he mentioned it was common in the industry to have different rates for state funded people and self funders

What is there a spelling or grammar error?

No, there wasn't. It was what you said that was unbelievable.

Were you the Accountant in the home/s you worked in?

www.ft.com/content/6c61fa30-f1dc-11e6-8758-6876151821a6 www.ft.com/content/6c61fa30-f1dc-11e6-8758-6876151821a6]]]]

Why shouldnt it be funded for everyone? Why should the wealthy sell their homes. Rishi had a 86k cap I think but it got cancelled.

Where did I say anything about the wealthy selling their homes?

i find it very sad when someone has worked their whole life for a home, never taken a penny off the state and then has to sell everything to fund their care.

How many people have not taken a penny off the state?

Id be tempted to ask said home managers if the care workers who work underneath them are being paid enough so THEY can self fund their own care when the time comes. Then watch said managers get the cats bum mouth and STFU

I'm so sorry to hear that. 💐

You can read it if you put the title into the Google search box then scroll down to the article.

You keep alluding to this (that self funders don't subsidise state funded people) but I can't seem to understand what basis you rely on to make this statement. I asked if you were an Accountant in the Care Home you said you worked in to try and understand if you had a proper insight into the figures. Maybe you were a Manager with access to the profitability figures. What is your expertise that underpins your claim that state funded people aren't cross subsidised by self funders?

You are so right. It’s a terminal illness, that destroys your ability to function, move, toilet yourself, eat, drink…Any other health condition that did that to you, your care would be free but dementia patients are left to fend for themselves.
People need to wish for cancer in old age. Anything but dementia.

An insurance system would be good, but there are a lot of feckless people who choose to live off the state all their lives ( another topic for discussion), and those who are genuinely unable to work. Not sure how it could be mwho would have to be forced into doing this, so not sure how it could be mandatory.

Feckless people still deserve dignity and care later on. How they lived their lives before should not matter.
What would you suggest happen to them? They just wander about in a dementia haze in the middle of the streets?

I think what @Portakalkedi was saying is that whilst an insurance system would be a good way of dealing with care costs not everyone would pay or could pay into one.

What oversight do you have in the whole market?