to ask why should I pay for someone else's mum's care home?

[Ilovexmastime]

I was just reading my DM's copy of The Express (I like to raise my blood pressure every so often) and came across this article: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/368525

It is an article about spending money that we give to the EU on old age care. There is a case study bit in it where a woman is complaining that they had to sell her mum's £140,000 bungalow to pay her £100,000 costs in a care home.

Am I missing something here? Why should I, as a taxpayer, pay for her mum's care home when she has enough money to cover it herself? It wasn't like her mother was ever going to leave the care home and move back home, so why not sell it?

I'd say if a person was too old to look after themselves in their own home but not ill then they would be 'infirm' and thus the NHS should be paying for their care.

Maybe the difference should come in whether someone needs medical care or not.

If someone needs specialist nursing care, or care because of demential or MH problems, then the state will fund in the same way they provide care for any other illness.

If someone is just getting too old to manage on their own comfortably and because of nothing other than old age they would prefer to be in a housing scheme, then they can self fund.

As someone who objects to people being forced to sell their home, I'd be much happier with a situation like that where medical needs were met by the state but social needs weren't.

I also think that people who self fund should be entitled to more choice about where they live.

Medical funding is v difficult to get though. We went through the continuing care assessment for my Grandad. He can't sit up, use his left side, hasn't eaten or taken oral meds since the start of December(drip fed), is completely blind, can't speak more than one word, incontinent, gets lots of infections, is anxious and confused ( mainly due to illness/blindness rather than dementia). He is only eligible for £108 (?) of his nursing home fees as his medical needs aren't high enough.

clouds i certainly agree with you that self-funders should have a choice about where they go. But ultimately most people who live well into old age will end up having complex medical, social and emotional needs. Where does the money come from to cover the full range of care these people need, as well as feeding and housing them? I just don't see how that can be fully funded by the state for everyone.
And as for people being forced to sell their homes, well if i move house i will be 'forced' to sell my current property to fund the move. What's the difference?

Never, ever respond to the dog whistle attempts of the right wing tabloid press to wind you up. They're invariably following their own agenda, and they invariably suppress or twist any fact that don't suit their agenda.

The difference is that you won't be living next door to someone in an identical house that has been given their house for free.

Well clouds you would be surprised

But why does that matter anyway? Those that can afford to pay, pay. Those that can't get state support. Isn't that what a welfare state is supposed to be about?

And as for people being forced to sell their homes, well if i move house i will be 'forced' to sell my current property to fund the move. What's the difference?

Exactly.

Medical care is different, but we all have to pay for a roof over our heads.

At the first sign of dementia I am going to top myself. Seriously.

No, that isn't what the welfare state is about. If it was, we wouldn't have an NHS that is free to everyone regardless of how much they have in the bank.

I will definitely be doing everything I can to avoid being in this position when I'm older. If I haven't already spent almost everything by the time I'm 80, I will use something like the gifted housing scheme I linked to earlier.

Well more fool you clouds, that's why the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. Handing down your assets and accumulated wealth is the only way your children will stand a chance of improving their position.

I wonder when the insurance policies for aged care will become available in the UK as they are in the USA ?

Which is why I intend to do as much of that as possible while I'm still alive, and before I need residential care ( if I ever do).

Fair enough, me too.
Although again I have no plans to spend 20 years sat in a piss stained arm chair getting under everyones feet. 3 score years and 10 is enough for anyone IMO

That goives you 2 years of retirement then Mosman!!!

On a state pension maybe but I'm certainly not relying on that to fund my booze cruises

To each according to his needs, from each according to his means.

Yes, the NHS is free at point of use to all. But this is just one part of our welfare system. Housing, social care, financial assistance (e.g JSA, tax credits) are means tested and so they should be.
When it comes to elderly care medical needs may be varied and expensive, but there is also housing, feeding etc to consider. How can the NHS be expected to pay for this as well, even if the person in question has an empty home to sell which they will never live in again?

To me, the only question is: what's worse - stumping up for the poor, or protecting the unearned inheritance of people - who thanks to their age & class, are highly likely to be well off anyway - with cash payments to them from money earned by the sweat of my brow?

Which is more unfair?

That's a massive assumption you are making there Cory!

One of the biggest reasons I object to this is because my generation and my children's generation are not likely to be well of unless they are extremely privelidged.

Especially for our children's generation, who are going to have to pay tuition fees, will struggle to ever buy a house, may well be stuck in a situation where their living costs are so high that no matter how hard they work they have little chance of being financially comfortable. That's how I see my children's future being, and I don't see why I as their parent shouldn't be able to help them in whatever way I can without having to worry that I won't have money left over to pay for my elderly care. Especially when I would get the same care regardless of whether I have ever had the means to pay it or not.

Clouds - goal in one! I am chastened. As you point out, the current inheritors are the last generation to afford their own homes and inherit chunks of cash.

For the next generation property will be hereditary. (yep, like in the middle ages - we've come far, haven't we Dave.)

But the problem remains - given that many people won't inherit, how much can you justify taking the only thing they've got - their wages - to support people who will?

Tbh, I'd rather we stopped paying money to the EU and foreign aid and stopped trying to be so influential in the rest of the world so we could fund care for our own, but I don't know enough about all of that stuff to be able to turn it into an eloquent argument!

I rather agree with you about spending reviews. I'd go for an efficiency drive, myself, ie lose half the civil service.

To the people who are comparing payment for care homes to the NHS:

If you have social care needs at ANY adult age, your income and savings will be taken into account (although I must admit, I'm not sure how it works with children). If you are assessed as needing a care package but have a certain amount of savings, then you are expected to pay for it yourself. I work with some people who are disabled, unable to work and only receive benefits and still, they are expected to contribute to their social care package.

Some of you are labouring under the misapprehension that the NHS picks up the tab for care of the elderly.

Medical care, yes, but not social care. You'll be treated for any illnesses or conditions that you have, but not looked after indefinitely just because you are elderly. Not being able to look after yourself is not considered an illness.

As several posters have mentioned, you can be deaf, incontinent, incapable of feeding yourself, whatever - this is not something that the NHS will pay for. It is very hard to get state funded care on medical grounds.

The only case I know of is my SIL's grandmother - she was sectioned at the age of 85 because her dementia made her a danger to others as she became very violent. Her care was therefore state funded even though she owned a property.