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?

THIS! The violent alcoholic ex offender underneath me has ppl bending over backwards to help him Meanwhile my DF who had prostate cancer was discharged from hospital on 16th September and died on 6th October. He was so weak he fell on the stairs. Funeral is next week.

Oh Jennifer, I'm so sorry to hear about your father ❤️

That’s so so sad.
It just goes to show the chronic difference in care with the elderly at the bottom.

For some it is the inequality. My DM struggles with what she seems an unfairness.

She and my DF have worked their whole lives, scrimped and saved to buy their first house, worked long hours, sometimes two jobs. If they need care, they will have to pay.

My DM’s sister, hasn't worked very much, time at home, council house. If she needs care the state will pay.

DM sees it as unfair. They have worked hard to be able to leave an inheritance to their DC’s and GDC’s.

I see it differently. DM will be able to choose her care. She has worked hard but has had a much more fulfilling life, trips abroad, lovely house, holiday home etc.

DM still can't reason out the ‘unfairness’.

Thank You @Beepbeepoutoftheway @StandingSideBySide

I’d want the prisoner to pay
Firstly by working whilst in prison
and secondly
If they have a property ( or assets ) the Government should put a charge on it so that when it’s sold or the prisoner dies the tax man gets some money back. e
Currently that’s what happens to the elderly with assets.

Not the family as I don’t think families should have to pay for elderly care either.

Perhaps the elderly should start committing crimes. At least they'd get their 3 meals a day 🙂

Prisoners cannot continue in their jobs because they are incarcerated.

Instead prisoners are expected to work or partake in education whilst in prison. There are several reasons for this, keeping people busy is obviously good for moral and keeping their hand in regarding work is good for when they get out. Obviously getting prisoners to maintain the prison saves money.

The work they do pays very little about £10-20 a week and some money from that is deducted.

What you seem to be suggesting is charging prisoners full rent and board. I believe they do this in the States and prisoners have quite a substantial bill once they leave.

It's a brilliant idea because prisoners have often lost their homes and jobs when they're released. Many end up homeless and they find getting work difficult.

You want to saddle them with huge amounts of debt that they have no chance of paying back. I have no doubt that your answer to that would be prison. Send them to prison for not paying back their prison debts.

I noticed you've ignored the solution of incarcerating fewer people and spending money on rehabilitation in order to lower recidivism and save money.

It's really not hard. Don't commit the crime and you won't do prison time.

Prisoners CHOOSE to commit these crimes. Elderly people don't choose to need care!

Prisoners CHOOSE to commit these crimes. Elderly people don't choose to need care!

This is true, prisoners choose to commit crimes and the elderly don't choose to get old.

Facts.

@BaileyRob - you see, that seems fair, ie with money you can choose your care home. But I can tell you that in practice it doesn’t work like that.

For a really nice place (eg Thursday Murder Club) you have to have oodles of money, and be reasonably able when you enter.

Mil had advanced dementia when the towel was thrown in and she could no longer stay at home with fil. No home would take her. Dh and bil went round many, many nursing homes and mil’s condition was too bad for all except one. They immediately put her on anti-psychotic medication as she was attacking the staff. This was a downmarket sort of place (although kind) but mil was paying full whack but no-one else was.

It's not about choosing to get old.

It's about knowing that as you get old, you are likely to need care and planning for that. I think it's your own responsibility - you're the person who will be receiving this service. Why should you not pay for it?

In the same way that when you think about having a child, you need to plan who is going to care for them - is it going to be you or paid for care?

Its no life in a care home. With Starmer at the helm we'll all be self euthanising before then. Save the family your home and not sit around drinking tea and waiting to die for 2 years.

"choose the model they want" or choose the model they can afford? Some may not be able to afford anything because the cost of living is through the roof. I am worried about an insurance-based model because it sounds like a USA concept. The last thing we need is a USA model embedded in British NHS

I think if you really need full time care because you've been unlucky enough to develop a condition such as dementia, then the costs are just insane. My dm's nursing home costs about £1,800 a week. This is pretty normal. Lots of the residents will spend several years there. It's just down to luck. Get dementia - you owe £300k or more in care fees. Don't get dementia, pay very little. It seems very unfair. I think there needs to be a system to spread the risk. Everyone pays a little, but no-one is wiped out by the costs. The trouble is that unless you have experience of dementia (or similarly devastating conditions), it's hard to really understand quite how much care is needed and what the cost of this is. Which means often people don't appreciate the risk they and their family faces in old age.

I agree with you ! Well put

Yes its perverse in this country to keep people alive for as long as possible with no quality of life.

I'm dreading getting old
I'd rather not live if I have a diagnosis of dementia to be honest. Trouble is , it's then out of your hands :(
Nobody seems to want a grown up conversation around it all and it's the care homes who end up with all the money be them good or bad ( mostly bad in my own experience of them )

So, those who know they're going to get old but do no saving? They get care funded for them. Hardly fair?

I have experience of my parent's dementia. He had Alzheimer's and vascular dementia, which is called mixed dementia. It was awful for him and for me. It made me ill. I have never understood why dementia is treated differently to things accepted as physical disease like a broken leg, cancer, MND etc etc. All of which are free at the point of delivery on NHS. Dementia causes, I'm going to emphasis this, PHYSICAL changes in the brain. If it was a brain tumour causing physical changes, NHS covers. I think some intelligent Solicitor should take the Govt on about this. "Physical" disease except dementia is usually covered by NHS Continuing Healthcare and funded by the public purse, but dementia damage causes physical changes in the brain

I know a few people with ' trust funds ' and probably won't ever have to pay out for care home fees. I'm told there are ways around having to sell the family home even if the council look into the finances apparently. The parents have ( effectively) signed the home over to their children.

Same with bladder incontinance Dad was 88 but it wasnt caused by old age It was caused by the prostate cancer

Beyond belief

Anyone with a diagnosis of dementia is treated so differently to anyone else and to say it's ' unfair ' is an understatement ;(
It's a complete travesty
I'd go as far to say it's a 'goldmine ' for the government because they will always pay more than someone with a different diagnosis and needing care.

So what happens when people CHOOSE not to buy a house or save for their old age, i.e. just spend their earnings on holidays, cars, etc? They'll have nothing to sell, so will just be expecting the state to pay their care.

This is the conundrum really.

Provide for yourself, i.e. buy your house, invest in pensions, etc., and you get bugger all from the state.

Spend your money (or never bother working more than minimum) and the state provides your rent, pension, pension credit, and care home costs should you need them.

Where's the personal responsibility??