Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

327 replies

Ilovexmastime · 04/01/2013 12:29

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?

OP posts:
louisianablue2000 · 04/01/2013 16:54

The trouble with expecting people to pay for a care home is the criteria that determines if you get medical care or not. For example, my Dad died of cancer. A fortune was spent extending his life by a few months and the NHS paid for a hospital bed to be put into my parents home and a host of nurses and doctors facilitated the death he wanted at no direct cost to him or my family. On the other hand my grandfather had a series of strokes that eventually meant he was unable to live alone. My Mum cared for him at home until it was too much (imagine dealing with a 16 stone baby) and he then went into a care home for the last few years of his life. All his care was considered 'social' so when he had someone coming in weekly to care for him in his own home he had to pay for it, and all the modifications Mum and Dad had to make to their house had to be paid for by them and he paid all his care home costs himself. He could afford it but why can you get free personal care for cancer but not for a stroke or alzheimers? That's why it is unfair.

AmberLeaf · 04/01/2013 16:56

It's not about homeowners being undeserving at all. Why in the world would I think that non homeowners are feckless and undeserving

That was the impression I got from you post below

This is a subject that really winds me up. I don't see how it is fair that one person should have to pay because they have made wise financial decisions but someone who hasn't gets exactly the same care for free

..and the posts about expensive holidays and handbags

sorry if I got that wrong.

CloudsAndTrees · 04/01/2013 16:59

Eh? So everyone who doesn't have a house to sell to pay for care has been blowing it on expensive holidays?

I didn't say, or imply that either. I asked a genuine question.

Suppose I have a house worth a million pounds, but then when I'm 65 I choose to sell it, travel round the world a few times, and then I move in with my adult child and put all the left over money into trust for my grandchildren. Then I get to 80 years old and I need residential nursing care, but I can't afford to pay for it anymore. I'd be in exactly the same financial position as someone who could never have afforded a house at the time it is decided I need care.

Should I be given free care because I made different choices with my own money when someone else still has their million pound house and is forced to sell it? We both started retirement with the same value asset, but we made different choices on how to spend our money. Why does my choice entitle me to free care, but someone else's choice to leave it to their children means their choice is invalid?

angeltulips · 04/01/2013 17:06

I'm guessing that you all believe that this should be funded by increasing the tax take of people richer than you?

So, let me get this straight. I work very very hard and earn a lot of money. But my parents are poor and do not own a house for me to inherit.

You would like me to pay materially more tax (on top of the 50p in the pound the taxman already takes) so that you can all inherit large valuable assets when your parents die? And you believe this to be "fair"?

Unfuckingbelievable. This is worse than the tortured justification of child benefit.

AmberLeaf · 04/01/2013 17:07

It has been implied that those without a house to sell to pay for their care don't have one due to fecklessness.

Many have said as much if you scroll back.

unwise financially, not prudent, blown it on partying etc etc

ShiftyFades · 04/01/2013 17:09

What Chipping said.
With this attitude we should just all rent, have great holidays and not have a penny to our names when we start going down the slippery slope to dementia. Angry
Why should I expect to work hard, pay lots of tax and pay a mortgage for my son to have a good start in life.

CloudsAndTrees · 04/01/2013 17:14

Some people will have been like that and blown money on partying though. Not being a homeowner is a valid choice even for people that could afford it.

I don't even see that as a criticism, it is up to individuals what they depend their own money on.

And sometimes people might be unwise financially, or feckless with their money. It's their money, they can do what they want with it. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get medical care and treatment when they need it. They are part of this so called civilised society as well.

We don't expect people to pay for their children's education, we don't expect people to pay for the vast majority of other illnesses they might have, so why should they pay for an illness that means they need residential care?

CloudsAndTrees · 04/01/2013 17:14

Depend = spend! Sorry!

hatgirl · 04/01/2013 17:16

there seems to be an assumption from a lot of posters on here that all older people will at some point require residential care. This is just not the case at all.

Also, generally affluent people have better life expectancies and fewer health needs, can afford adaptations to their own homes, decent equipment etc if needed and are therefore probably less likely to end up in residential care in the first place unless they absolutely need 24 hour care in a residential environment.

I think it is a bit naive to look at it purely from the point of its not fair that people on benefits don't pay and people who who have money do have to pay - there are many other societal injustices involved up until that point that may have led to those people to be in their respective positions at that moment in time. Generally if you have worked hard and saved hard, you will always be better off than someone who hasn't or hasn't been in a position to do so. To resent the fact that your efforts have been rewarded and you can afford to pay for a better service than the state will offer is just a bit...

AmberLeaf · 04/01/2013 17:17

We don't expect people to pay for their children's education, we don't expect people to pay for the vast majority of other illnesses they might have, so why should they pay for an illness that means they need residential care

Because they no longer need their home!

Why should it be kept sitting there empty?

Other than so their children can inherit it on their death, I see no other reason.

CloudsAndTrees · 04/01/2013 17:20

Because it belongs to them. It is their property, and if they want to leave it to their children (who will have to pay a high level of inheritance tax anyway) then that should be their choice.

CloudsAndTrees · 04/01/2013 17:21

How does it work when someone uses one of those equity release schemes that are advertised on the telly and then needs residential care? Does anyone know?

fluffygal · 04/01/2013 17:25

louisa Although it seems unfair, due to cancer your Dad's primary need was a health one so he would qualify for NHS continuing care funding, which means they pay for all care. Social needs through dementia would not qualify as being a primary health care need, its a social need therefore the NHS do not provide funding for that.

Care homes charge private paying clients more then they charge for clients by SS. For the same care. Most private paying clients do NOT get a better care home because quite simply they can only just about afford the basic ones that funded clients use!

fluffygal · 04/01/2013 17:26

clients funded* by SS

Original poster
Ilovexmastime · 04/01/2013 17:32

Bytheway1 I wouldn't begrudge your mum free care, she is exactly the sort of person that we should be saving our welfare money to pay for, not millionaires who could pay for it themselves.

In an ideal world I absolutely believe that care should be free to all, but I just can't see how it's going to work.

OP posts:
Original poster
Ilovexmastime · 04/01/2013 17:33

Exactly Amberleaf!

OP posts:
Original poster
Ilovexmastime · 04/01/2013 17:34

Can I also say that I think the amount of money the owners of private care homes make is immoral?

OP posts:
digerd · 04/01/2013 17:35

My mother was in a home for just a few months before she died. The fees were paid by the council, and claimed back after the house was sold. Sounds fair to me.

CloudsAndTrees · 04/01/2013 17:36

Amber, you could apply the same theory to anyone who has a spare few grand in their account. Why should they save it for their children when they don't actually need it? Why should it be sitting there doing nothing?

3littlefrogs · 04/01/2013 17:36

Louisa. I agree with you. Cancer is an awful disease, but a dearly loved family member died a slow and painful death from an equally awful disease, but because it wasn't "cancer" she was denied nursing care, dignity and compassion. She didn't qualify for any palliative care or support, but it would be difficult to imagine a worse final illness.

CloudsAndTrees · 04/01/2013 17:37

Care homes charge private paying clients more then they charge for clients by SS

This, I think, is disgusting and completely immoral.

3littlefrogs · 04/01/2013 17:41

Sorry - that was to Louisianablue, I read your name wrong. I fail to see why a stroke, or series of strokes is not considered an "illness requiring nursing care". However, IME you have to be practically on life support to qualify for nursing care. Practically everything is considered to be "social care".

3littlefrogs · 04/01/2013 17:44

Cloudsandtrees - yes they do, almost 50% more, because the state will not pay the true cost (or at least what the owners say is the true cost).

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 04/01/2013 17:45

Whoever asked upthread about changing homes when the savings run out, when my DH's gran ran out of savings, DH and his siblings paid the difference between the local authority funding and the care home fees so DGMIL wouldn't have to move.

My DGM is now in a home after holding out for years - I fully expect there to be no inheritance and I am fine with that. As she has been on a public sector pension for 30+ years, she has certainly had "more back" in taxes than she contributed already, if we are looking at it that way.

There's a divide between people who see this as an extension of health care and therefore should be free (parallel with NHS) and those who see it as an extension of housing/residency and therefore think it should be self paid where savings/income/assets allow and state supported where not (parallel with housing benefit I guess). I'm in the latter camp.

simplesusan · 04/01/2013 17:45

I am definately of the school of thought that if you have gone without all your life but saved up to buy your own house with the hope that one day your children/grandchildren will benefit from this, then you should not be forced to sell your home.
My mum went without and so did I as a child but she did manage to buy her council house.

Now why should the only asset she has be taken away from her. Others on the street will receive free care, they could just have easily bought their homes. They chose to spend their money at the time on other things.
Totally unfair.

Swipe left for the next trending thread