thinking owning a house is a waste of time, as it just gets takenoff you when you get old/put in ahome

[ohnanaWHATSMYNAMEohnana]

one of my aunts has had to go into a care home, serious dementia needs fulltime help

but everything shes worked for and saved for looks liek it will be taken from her.

I won't have a house, so i won't. All this about Why should children get a windfall. Why should the state get a windfall?

The state isn't getting any windfall. The costs of care are covered; anything left over is distributed according to the will/law of intestacy.

Sure, i was respondía on the inheritance issue.

You might as well say 'why should I pay any care I need'.

And if it, ie welfare, is justamente about paying for what you get, well I guess that's a road a lot of mners wouldn't want to travel. I've paid for way more than i get: put that into the calculation for care fees if you want to have that conversation about fairness and welfare.

Rubbish. We do pay for social care under the age of 65. Why stop suddenly? Because people are old and frail and probably vote tory anyway so who carestía about them?

A welfare state isn't about 'you pay for what you get' though is it?

Its about supporting those who, for whatever reason, cannot afford to pay This is acheived by taxing etc the people that can pay.

The system is flawed, things need to change.

But if everyone had your attitude the welfare system would break.

Cripes my local authority pays for yoga and karate for fully grown adults. I'm paying for care, thanks. I'm paying now.

Well bubble, no its not. Excepto, apparently, for the old and frail. Not fair? Why no, its not.

The problem with the system is that its the people in the middle that get the hardest - once again.

Those that can afford to pay will do so anyway, and pay for the best money can buy.

The people that can't afford to pay get if free.

Those in the middle that have worked all their life to build up and keep their heads above water, have to give it all up to get no better care than those that don't pay.

Thats not to say I think those that can't pay should receive inferior care, it's just shows who loses out the most once again

The welfare system is already breaking. It's not going to use my house to solve its problems. It's badly managed and abused and i am going to ensure thatcase my children never rely on it.

Yes bubble you are right there. I read the stories of the working poor here from some mners and they make me angry for them.

It doesn't want to use your house to solve its problems. It wants you to sell your house to pay for your care.

Except you want care for free. You seem to think the NHS is a saving scheme 'I've paid in all my life now I'm cashing in so give me my room for free'

Yest it diez. It can't providencia the services - the ONLY welfare service i am ever likely to need, which ought to be provided. Of course i think it should be parte of the welfare state. Of curse. Why not, aparte from cost? people get old so they're dumped by the state. Nice. Why should children and the young/middle-aged get help when the frailest don't? What happens to everyone's right on welfare credencial when it comes to geriatric care?

No one gets dumped - If you cannot pay then you get your home paid for.

Everyone over 65 gets their prescriptions free, winter fuel allowence etc. Over 65's get looked after quite well by the state and actually didn't do too bad in the emergency budget.

But why should the state provide you with a home, why should it pay for your lighting, heating, the roof over your head if you have a house? You are confusing the right to have free health treatment with the right to have your home paid for - the fees are to pay for the cost of housing you.

And by the way, the nhs principle of care at the point of need obtains no mátter what your income. There is a very fat man having his bottom wiped at our expensas right now. But because he is younger, he is more deserving? If you need your bottom wiped at eighty you have to pay, but eating yourself into a stupor and you don't? You can get a gastric band instead of eating less but if you're eighty and can't lift a spoon you have to pay?

Sure, that makes sense. I don't think.

Like I said you are confusing the cost of health care with the cost of having a roof over your head.

Two separate things.

Confusing health care with social care? The welfare state dora thatcase already. If you are younger.

Don't referencia to the nhs if you don't want to confusa things.

Old people need to be cared for because they can't do the things i have described. But if you insist - let me stay in my house and send carers round. In your view that should be free? Removido the roof element?

The NHS is there to pay for the treatment of sick people not houses.

Part of the welfare state is to stop people dropping below the poverty line by providing those who cannot afford them with houses, heating, food etc

You are enititled to free health care not free housing. Housing is means tested

You are entitled to free health care regardless of your earnings and age.

You are not entitled to free housing regardless of your earnings - only those with very low income get free housing - why should that change once you reach 65?

The system is flawed and very unfair (see my earlier post re. dh's grandmother) but shouting from the rooftops that everyone should be entitled to a free place in a care home is not going to solve the problem.

We have an ageing population and a bad economy. We need a reasonable debate where it is accepted that there will always be people that cannot/will not provide for their old age. These people will need to catered for - unless we are willing to return to the days of the workhouses.

There will never be a completely fair way, there will be always be people that pay in more and take less out than others, that is the nature of a welfare state.

But the system needs to be kinder.

This is one of those issues that needs cross party debate

appletrees, where do you get the idea that social care is free for younger people? It ain't. It is always means tested. It has always been means tested. It is only free for those who can't pay. You can't somehow squeeze money out of someone who doesn't have.

I think there is a fundamental lack of understanding here by those who have never needed social care. It is not the NHS. It is not free at the point of use, unless you are unable to pay.

It was bubble who introduced the NHS -- I am well aware of the difference.

Te kind of issues decribed as "social care" in the elderly very often constitute "health care" in the young. But in the elderly they're renamed.

There is a very nasty hypocrisy in those who shout about social and welfare care for the young how dare they take away my library card yet for a frail elderly person who can't lift a spoon "you're not disabled pay for it".

Horrible, horrible hypocrisy.

What? ok from spanish to striking out. What te devil is going on?

You need to talk to the right lawyers