To think the 70 cap on care home fees is too high

[Pprice]

I think it needs to be nearly half this amount as 70000 is a very high amount for people to have sitting around. Most will still have to seel their homes and this 70000/spent doesn't include lots of things so many will end up spending way more before the NHS steps in.

It doesn't feel right to me that my youth is spent paying for the elderly,

And who, pray, do you think paid their taxes for YOUR schooling for 12 years?

There are different rates for permanent and temporary care and different funding sources depending on the reason for admission (told you I've looked into it ) seems if you're discharged from hospital for a short while you don't necessarily have to pay.

fairy The elderly. Thats my point- I think the flow of wealth should always go down (but not so that your own family can benefit when you die).

You are missing the last part of my comment, I don't want to pay for the wealthy elderly now and I don't want anybodys children paying for me when I am old and (hopefully!) wealthy.

And as I get older I will gladly pay more to fund the next generations schooling, housing, anything else they need to get a good start in life.

Is there a difference in someone needing care and someone needing health care?-health care being paid for by NHS. Surely there is no difference. I've been round a few care/nursing homes and have seen those who need care and can see they would not be able to stay alive without that care being given. If you imagined the person needing a place in a care home being young, would you still think of the 'problem' being theirs to pay for? There is no time that the young pay for the old or the old pay for the young-we all pay, through taxes (vat and the rest),now or past.

I think taxes should be raised to pay for this. Say two people each earned 50k per year, person A saves and buts a house, has a few luxuries but not many. Person B doesn't save any but chooses to have a more luxuries lifestyle and doesn't but a house. At the end of they both need social care person A will have to pay whereas person B won't. That's mit fair is it?

*buy not but!

Thanks!

Just a question, how should/would this work.

Say a married couple in their late 60's or thereabouts. One half of the couple becomes seriously ill, maybe has a stroke or similar.
They are too disabled by their condition/illness to be looked after by the other partner. Maybe they are paralysed, maybe have a catheter, maybe need all of their personal needs attended to by a professional, maybe severe dementia sets in.

The couple have a house together worth (just thinking a random figure) around 300-50k (ish) There life savings are good, maybe 80k
If the partner who is still fine, mobile, active has to pay for care home fees and social care fees etc for the other partner this is likely (well around London it is) to cost around 3-4k inclusive of everything a month.
What happens when the money runs out, and the partner at home has nothing left at all? Does the local authority pick up the tab? When the partner who is at home is left with no money, should the house be sold and a cheaper place be purchased to continue paying for the partner in the care home?
The partner who is well could have another 20 years of life, who will pay for them when/if they need money for their care, or even just to live???
Hypothetical, but I'm interested.

Sorry a bit garbled, but hope you get the gist

Person A will have to pay whereas Person B won't. Thats not fair is it?

Well depends how you think of it. Person A chose to buy a house and Person B chose luxuries. Person B still needs somewhere to live, so is presumably paying towards somebody owning a house even if it is their landlord (Which when they die could be used to pay for their care, whoever they are). Person B is also paying VAT and the like on these luxuries, so may well have contributed more to the pot than the person who has saved and owns a house. Person B is spending money on things that are keeping people in jobs (food, recreation, tourism), and therefor contributing to the economy by paying taxes, where as Person A is sitting on his wealth in the hopes that he can either die with it or pass it on to his children. Why shouldn't Person A sell this to pay for care when Person B has been contributing all his/her life through ways mentioned above?

My understanding is a living spouse keeps their share of the house (again looking on terms of my grandparents) and it focuses on savings.

As for the difference between NHS and traditional care again my belief is one is to do with washing dressing making a meal and the other wound management, medication administering etc. Could be wrong though!

DH's granny is in a care home. Apparently it's extortionate, although I'm not the one in charge of the money so I don't know the exact amount. I know that her children are divided over the decision to send her to somewhere on the more expensive end of the scale, but the way I see it, it's her money. She wants to be somewhere she feels comfortable and where she has some friends.

My PIL know that there will be nothing left by the end, but they are fine with that because they would rather she's well cared for and happy. It's just a fact of life nowadays as people are living longer. Inheritance isn't an issue unless a person has died and until then, it's their money!

If you are not able to wash, dress and sometimes feed yourself and someone can't/isn't there to do it for you or help you then what happens? Have a look in a care home, I don't see how you can give nursing care ie wound dressing etc and deny other forms of care. Both are needed to be able to continue living. If a child can't feed,wash,dress themselves and no one is there to do it, then what do we do as a society? We make sure that chid gets cared for for free, so why not the elderly too?

Because one is deemed a health care need and one is deemed a social care need

Don't ask me how that works or who decided it but that's how it is

What do hey do in Scotland?

THEY no hey

It is very difficult as resources are limited but it is a question i am about to have to face as my mother's care is becoming an issue.

I think it is reasonable that everyone gets basic care, paid by the state, just as everyone gets basic education and basic health if they need it. That would be affordable. Extras paid for by the individual if s/he can afford it.

I don't like the penalising of the old though. They were told that if they paid enough taxes, they'd be looked after if they needed it.

"Care should be funded because it's a medical need."

Social care is not a medical need. Health care is a medical need and is funded.

It is categorically not penalising the older service user group. It's care costs, for anyone of any age who may need care.

engeika- the elderly are taken care of if they need it. I suppose it's your definition of "need". If someone had a house worth say,£350K and £150K in savings it could be argued that they aren't "in need" of Government help and should pay for their own care. I just don't agree that the young should pay for the elderly to enable them to leave their wealth to their children.

and someone else's children (who may not have the benefit of an inheritance) will pay for your care??

Why not? They (along with my own children!) are going to be paying for other people's care anyway, and my tax contribution is currently going towards their education, healthcare, child tax credits, as well as today's elderly.

Swings and roundabouts isn't it?

Why not? They (along with my own children!) are going to be paying for other people's care anyway, and my tax contribution is currently going towards their education, healthcare, child tax credits, as well as today's elderly.

this is possibly the only thing they (government) haven't given to the elderly who, as a generation, got off pretty well. And now they want everyone else to pay for their care so their children can have an inheritance? really?

But if someone has Dementia that, surely is a medical need?

No - both my parents (who were not in the first flush of youth when they had me.....I'm now 48) had/have Dementia and my dad was only awarded NHS continuing care a month before he passed away last year, aged 86. Prior to that he and my mum (85) had both been paying care home fees for eighteen months. We had to sell their house to fund this after my dad - who had been my mum's carer for ten years - was diagnosed with Vascular Dementia in 2012.

My mum has had several assessments for NHS continuing care but, despite having severe Alzheimer's, being doubly incontinent and losing 22% of her body weight as a result of refusing to eat, she has been deemed to not meet the criteria.

Yet someone who has an illness brought on by their own life choices gets their healthcare paid for......

Grossly unfair imho.....oh, and I wasn't due to inherit from my parents anyway so that's not the reason I'm of this opinion!

"My mum has had several assessments for NHS continuing care but, despite having severe Alzheimer's, being doubly incontinent and losing 22% of her body weight as a result of refusing to eat, she has been deemed to not meet the criteria."

Unbelievable. Except it's true. And people here think her care isn't the responsibility of the state?

The ageism of some on this thread is shameful.

the amount that is spent on unnecessary wars and nuclear weapons and taxes not collected by massive corporations could pay over this stuff manyfold.

Anyone needing medical (nursing care) receives a contribution from the NHS towards their care (currently £110.89 per week). This is to help pay for the cost of keeping a registered nurse on the care home premises.