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.

I think it's likely that in the future children will end up having to take on the costs of care for their elderly parents who can't fund care themselves, in the same way as parents pay for care of young children. Means tested etc. but it will happen. It's a natural consequence of saying the state can't fund care for everyone, people are responsible for their own families etc.

I'd like to see the evidence of ageism on this thread.

Chickydoo - what actually happens is that when the savings/assetts pot is less than about £20K the state pays for the person in the care home.

The partner living in the house stays there until they die, then the house is sold, half the value of the estate is reclaimed by social services to pay back a chunk of the care home fees.

If the partner still living in the house needs care before they die, the house has to be sold (within 12 weeks in my part of the country) and all the money goes back to the government to fund both sets of care home fees.

This is the situation we are in at the moment.
All MIL's savings have gone on fees, FIL is still in their tiny flat, but the minute anything happens to him we will have 12 weeks to sell up.

We are paying her fees out of our savings ATM because SS want to go through through all our bank accounts in case either of the parents have given us any money in secret . That won't last more than a couple of months and I am worried we won't see that money again.

FIL is over 90 and I think SS are hoping that if they drag their feet they will soon get half the estate.

I don't begrudge the money and I agree that people should pay for their care if they have the funds, but MIL pays £400 per month more than the state funded people in the same care home.

It is all very stressful and time consuming.

To answer chickdoo's question about the hypothetical couple if one spouse needs to go into care and the other still lives at home then the value of the house is not taken into consideration and it can't be sold. If they have joint savings then only half will be assessed for care costs.
Similarly for care at home the value of the house is not counted (since obviously you are still living in it).

It is very hard to stop the state from taking the money for a house. You can put it into trust for your children but it may still be considered as 'deprivation of assets' to do that or to sign it over to them whilst still living there. The only safe way is to die in your own home!

The blunt facts are that the state simply cannot afford to pay all the care costs of the growing elderly population who are living longer and needing care for longer. If you suggest that the state should pay then you need to say what will be cut to pay for this. It is a massive bill.

This hypothetical situation that people put up where someone has made loads of money and spent it hardly ever happens in real life. The people who are not paying for their care it's usually because they were on a low income and they have never had any money not because they spent it.

If you are a private payer you get access to better care homes and care agencies than local authority funded folk. You pay more and on the whole you get more. This is fair. The state gives a basic safety net to people on a low income as it was always intended to do.

There is no right to inherit.
It's my belief that people should try to make their own way in the world and not rely on handouts whether from inheritance or from the government and the state will provide a basic safety net for those who can't through illness or circumstances.

It is true that in some care homes there will be a mix of LA funded and private payers and the private people will pay more for much the same service. This is market forces basically. The local authority can block book the beds in care homes and will always be by far the biggest customer so they can negotiate a discount on the fees.

There are care homes that are exclusively private because fees are higher than LA will pay and care homes that are exclusively LA because no private payer would choose them whereas LA funded people have little choice.

Well I'm seriously debating stopping saving for my future. I may as well have a good time now spending it all.

The other angle on that, mamadoc, is that only the very rich, or those who have a really good annuity or insurance of some sort, an afford to go into the nice private homes.
My parents and (PIL) were/are self funders, but not in the group that could afford top class care. The option for them is/was a reasonably good care home so that when their own money ran out there was a fairly good chance that they would be allowed to stay there and not moved somewhere cheaper when the state had to step in. Fortunately my parents both died before their money ran out - but the worry over what would happen when it did probably shortened their lives.

SIL's dad was in a lovely, very expensive care home funded from his very complicated investments portfolio. They wouldn't take dementia sufferers though. When he became unwell they couldn't get him out fast enough. He died in hospital waiting for a placement.

Dementia care is difficult to find privately - and is more expensive in the standard type of home where there is a mix of self and state funded residents.

Actually - I don't think that people in my age group (60ish) will live as long as our parents. Most of us will drop down dead from stress and exhaustion by the time we are in our 70s.

I have had 20 years of caring for old people and working and bringing up my own DC. I am knackered.

Why should the elderly pay? We dont pay when we access health care when we choose to have children, we dont pay for it when we are treated to lifestyle related cancers/illness nor for unavoidable illness.
Old age is unavoidable its not a choice but suddenly you are undeserving of free care at a certain age when there is a good chance you have paid more into the system than many young people. How about selling your house to fund antenatal care?
A society and a population with the mindset the that the elderly are more unaffordable than any other group is sick.

I don't think its the mindset that a whole group of people are unaffordable.

I think its the mindset off, well if they won't pay for their living expenses with that £250,000 sitting in the bank in savings, where does the £250,000 go?

Oh yes, their children who have not worked for this money. So we are in a situation where we have the lowest earners in society paying for the wealthiests living expenses.

Its a difficult debate because care homes can sometimes be a living expense and sometimes be a health care expense. Perhaps if care homes had two components for their pricing (living/bed/board and medical need) then the people who could afford it could pay the first rate out their own pocket but expect the gov to foot the bill for medical needs while living in care.

Its a very hard question and I don't know the answer, but from what I can see I really can't take my wealth with me when I die and don't see why my children should benefit from my wealth while the rest of the country pays for me. The only one gaining from that are my children who have not worked for anything i've got and should not expect a handout.

OTOH many children care for their parents for many years, often at the cost of their own careers, health and pensions. These people save the state an absolute fortune and get no thanks for it. Some may have an inheritance when the parent dies, but many won't.

I work in the community and see lots of people in their late 60s and upwards struggling to care for their parents who are in their 80s and 90s.

I know one man who is nearly 80 and he cares for his father who is 100.

People who want to will probably find a way around it.

Years ago my DH's uncle used to go to Jersey regularly for work. Every time he went he bought an expensive diamond which he hid I shall say not where. He wanted to make sure his children and not his ex got the benefit of his wealth.

I imagine better off pensioners are doing much the same today. There will always be ways around the rules, and a lot of people are adept at staying ahead.

"Care should be funded because it's a medical need. And it is fully funded for some people, who are no more special than anyone else, so it should be fully funded for everyone."

PtolemysNeedle:

Nope. Those who are fully funded by the NHS have to go through a rigorous screening process to show that their care needs are medical not social - many of them are terminally ill. Their needs are very different to the norm.

Care in care homes is overwhelmingly social NOT medical - help with daily living skills which cannot, for whatever reason, be delivered in their own homes. And even people ' funded by their local authority' have to pay almost all their income towards their care.

/yrs, local authority social worker - on leave today, before everyone dogpiles

I agree, basic care should be paid for by the state as is basic education etc is....some people can't dress themselves, toilet themselves etc-These are not choices, sometimes they are a fact of life. We are one of the riches countries of the world and maybe we should face the fact that as we get old we will need these things also.

Nope. Those who are fully funded by the NHS have to go through a rigorous screening process to show that their care needs are medical not social - many of them are terminally ill. Their needs are very different to the norm.

Dementia is a terminal illness - you don't hear of people recovering from Dementia! Only 'difference' is that it can take much longer for the patient to die. My mum was diagnosed in 2002 and is still (just) alive.

I've heard that you are more likely to be awarded NHS funding as a Dementia sufferer if you are a) on your last legs (as my dad was) or b) already dead and it's awarded posthumously.....that way there is no open-ended timeframe for payment to be made.

My dad's home put up all manner of obstacles to him receiving fully funded care, although eventually they conceded and agreed to take him back - days before he passed away the (nursing) staff were saying he was fit as a fiddle and could walk unaided, when the reality was that he had to be lifted from his 'cot' to a chair to be spoonfed slops by an agency nurse brought in specially to care for him 24/7.

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

a 12 year old has no means to pay for school. A 65 year has had a lifetime to build equity in a home. it's hardly the same.

You know what the real difference is? When that 12 year old gets to be 65, the state will have been bled dry. My generation won't have any pension. That 12 year old isn't even going to get a reasonable price on post secondary, forget having a pension.

With a cap at this level the very rich will get to keep quite a lot of money-the very poor will be cared for anyway.
Working class people in the North who have struggled to buy terraced houses and paid into a pension scheme will lose nearly everything.
Someone working in the same job who rented a council house and didn't pay into the pension scheme will be covered.
It is very difficult to organise this fairly.

Also the divide between health and social care is rather arbitrary and artificial.

My aunt with dementia was refused CHC. She was Nearly 92 and unable to walk.

She was In hospital. Cancer had been found. She could barely feed herself. Confused. Didn't know where the heck she was.

Had to be catheterised and the bed cleaned up when she opened her bowels.

Yet was refused free care.

She had already paid £125 000 into the system.

She was in the hospital for five weeks and they couldn't wait to get her out. Thankfully she died. It was a horrible end for a lovely elegant woman and im so glad she's out of it.

Her and her husband had no children. We're model citizens. Took very little out of the system as they were very healthy and worked hard all their lives.

Fairly arse as Jim Royle would say.

Thank god she checked out when she did. She shouldn't have had to pay at least 6 months prior when she broke her hip andnever walked again.

What about the five years before when she fell at home and the authorities wouldn't lethergo home because of the dementia . Since when was dementia/ Alzheimer's not a medical condition .

Someone said theres no consistency in the system.

Too right.

We are one of the richest countries in the world and the way our elderly are treated is Inhumane.

I'm sorry but I don't buy into the money's ran out bollox.

It's amazing what the government can find to throw at some pet scheme or other.

Need to calm down now.

• fair my arse!

Mine too!

Why do people keep saying our generation won't get a pension?

We probably will, no government is going to stop the state pension any time soon because it would obviously be political suicide. The only way we'd stop getting a pension is if we start allowing today's elderly to be left to die without any care or support. The more we support them now, the more likely it is that that support will still be there for us when we need it.

A 65 year old may have had a lifetime to build up equity, but what about when they don't? Should we just leave them and do nothing when they need care?

At least a 12 year old has parents that chose to have them and that have financial responsibility for them, and elderly person doesn't have that.

My earlier post should have read that MIL pays £400 more PER WEEK than the state funded residents in the same care home.

I always have to check because it is so eye wateringly expensive.

It's situations like that that make this issue so galling littlefrogs.

It wouldn't be so bad if paying for your own care actually meant you got more than the bare minimum, but it doesn't. You get exactly the same and pay more for the privilege.

If it wasn't like that, I'm sure that many people (like me) who who are planning on actively avoiding the government taking their money for care would feel differently and wouldn't mind contributing so much.

....if enough of us wanted free basic care, wouldn't political parties have to offer something? After all there is a lot of us, lots of us are going to become old(by the way, when is old?)

Raphaella that is really dreadful but sadly all too believable.
My mother had a brain haemorrhage and was hospitalised. Barely four weeks later, unable to eat or drink without being spoon fed, only able to swallow purees and thickened drinks, unable to sit up or move around the bed, unable to recognise her family, she was deemed to need only SOCIAL care and we were given 48 hours to find her a home to go to. She was unable to do anything for herself, was disorientated in time and place. She pays over £800 a week, funded by the sale of her house and her little bit of savings.

It is well nigh impossible to qualify for the nursing care component which is about £100 per week maximum. You would need to be on life support to get that I think.