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?

That’s actually what they are doing in Japan
I kid you not, there was a documentary about it.

I read last week that people in prison are getting dental appointments the day after they request them while the general public has a significantly worse service. It beggars belief that ordinary, law-abiding people are being taxed to the hilt but told they can't get their elderly dementia relative help unless they pay a fortune to access the help

This is the problem, with spiraling costs people will think ' why bother ' if you end up having it all taken away from you! What's the point ?

This is what I was getting at in my post shortly after but before I saw yours

Yes to this!

The problem in this situation is
When the house is sold the kids pay capital gains tax as they are the owners but not resident
If the kids want to buy a house for themselves they will have to pay second property tax
However
With the seven year rule the parent won’t have to pay. That won’t stop the Govns questions and yes intimidation as to why they passed their home on.

@GranPepper Ageing is physical, physical deterioration.

Dementia is a disease of ageing.

Dementia by age group:
60-64
0.6%

65-69
1.3%

70-74
3.3%

75-79
8%

80-84
12.1%

85-89
21.9%

90+
40.8%

I have experience of that too with my MiL.

COVID induced psychosis leading to dementia. Just been turned down at review for her care to be paid as it is not a medical need.

She is bed bound, incontinent, has no idea who anyone is and is tube fed. Repeated antibiotic medicines for infections.
Costing nearly £6,000 per month.

I'm sorry but lying contracted in a bed, incontinent, in constant pain, being fed mush and unable to see, hear or move properly is not a meaningful existence by anyone's standards. It's an existence, but it doesn't represent anything other than a pitiful one that any thinking person would want to avoid at any cost. I'm not talking about grandma living in sheltered accommodation with her crochet and a pet cat.

I suggested a charge is put on their assets which is taken back by the Govn when they die or sell.
They would therefore still have their property to live in when and if they get out of prison.
If it’s a whole life term with no chance of release and they have assets and no family living in their property and including savings in the bank etc. Then it should be sold to pay for their time at His Majesties pleasure.

I have no idea about how affective other ways of dealing with criminals are.
Im looking at saving money for those in prison.

However, if your suggestion works, is a more effective deterrent to reoffending, doesn’t put the public at risk, satisfies the victims and costs less then yes it’s a good idea

And yet
Incontinence is classed as a disability warranting benefits…..just not if you are a pensioner!!!

There we have it again, another example of the elderly being discriminated against because of age.

My mum is in a care home, no issue with her selling her property to pay for care.

Before that point she was getting increasingly reliant on family and couldn't fund a carer to come in sufficiently often and wasn't keen i.e. she / we needed help with how to do that as the funding stress was significant. Doing equity release would have meant less at the care home stage.

The other issue is running out of money now in care. She is relatively young and although in need of 24 hour care is likely to outlive the cash from her property sale. That puts the burden back on the taxpayer.

@StandingSideBySide

When are continence issues a disability?

They are hugely common amongst the population, especially women after birth and menopause.

As with most issues, the older you get, the more likely these physical issues will occur.

Discrimination - yes, we discriminate in that we allow older people to retire and no longer have to work.

If we don't discriminate by age then they can continue working and no longer be eligible for state pensions and benefits related to their age.

I'd say more once their quality of life diminishes to the point they are unable to get enjoyment from the time they have. When they nolonger know their family their friends lifelong football team, give zero reaction to a goal, give zero reaction to their favourite music.

Certainly not a money thing, it has to be based on quality of life.

I suspect it's lumped in with people's concept of mental illness in that both are somehow seen as a moral failing and could be alleviated if only the individual tried a bit harder. This happens because dementia involves problematic behaviour and is an inconvenience for others to have to deal with. The same attitude towards neurodivergence as well. The hierarchy of illness and disability is an interesting topic.

And most people in care homes arent exactly enjoying life. Its a paradox draining your bank account just to live miserably.

I would say that the vast majority of prisoners do not own their own homes.

other than that I concur that prison is far too attractive an option and for most men is no deterrent whatsoever to their lives of crime.

I stand firmly alongside @taxguru on this point. Take responsibillity for yourself and there is minimal help. Spend everything and it's all free.
edited for spag.

I don't know what deny them treatment means. Put them out on the streets? Refuse care? Refuse medical treatment?

Why are you limiting this to people with dementia? People with severe mental health problems and disabilities don't have a good quality of life - in my opinion.

Some children with disabilities don't have much awareness and are incontinent, they'll also need care for the rest of their lives. Should they also be 'refused treatment'?

Two questions what do you think National Insurance is for?

What would you do with people unable to care for themselves but who don't have insurance?

They stick you in a super grotty care home with sticky carpets and tinned soup if you can't pay anything though. The people with money get to pay for a few years of clean carpets, flat screen tvs and slightly less patronising care assistants until their funds run out and they too get shipped out to the soup farm.

Yup. My dad would rather be dead than living in a nursing home draining the inheritance he worked hard his whole life to leave me.

I think we should be looking at the profits made by some of these homes. I know some are small family businesses but some of the large chains are owned by hedge funds who put some management company in and just sit back and cream off the profits. The point being that if these homes can make big profits then state intervention could reduce the cost of elderly care. I’d like to see a fair assessment of actual cost and legislation to stop the profiteering

This is the problem they need to be properly regulated or there are state run homes. There needs to be a cap on how much they can charge because they often make huge profits.

I think my aunt's home is 100k a year.