To get annoyed when people try to avoid care costs

[paramedicswift]

People deserve good care in old care, potentially in their own home or in a care home.

While it is completely rational thing to do, people try avoid this cost by spending as much money as they can before they need this care or they give it away to family.

On one side, it is completely rational. I understand that people have paid taxes, national insurance and worked for their entire life. They have a desire to see this work to be passed onto their children for them to benefit from their hard work.

One the other side, it is incredibly entitled. To me, your care in old age is just another cost of life. It is like cost of food, cost of shelter. I wish I did not have to spend money on rent, food and travel to work. But I have to. This is just life.

It makes me even more angry when family inheritances come into it. It is just so greedy and horrible. I do not know why it is unacceptable to some people to apply for benefits and never work but completely acceptable to avoid paying for social care.

It is a bit of tragedy of commons because if everyone did it, then taxes would be wasted on caring for old people that COULD HAVE afforded the care themselves rather than important things such as education for children, public infrastructure projects and healthcare that benefit everyone.

To everyone according to their need. If someone cannot genuinely afford old age care and they did not deliberately avoid the costs, then I have no problems with state subsidised care.

Am I being unreasonable?

My father spend £130,000 a year (I kid you not) on day and night at home dementia care in the last 1 - 2 years of his life and died 2 weeks after the whole of his life savings were spent on it. he was obviously wise to keep his money to pay for that as the state provides very little which is any good.

The moral issue in the original post is should people spend what they have or save in case they need it so they do not burden the state.
Eg those who need pension credit and housing benefit in old age as they spent every last penny of their wages on meals out, starbucks, cars, wine women and son are scamming the rest of us who don't eat out and save up for old age and yet the state rewards them for their spend spend spend through the benefits system.

A timely thread. Dad has dementia and was moved into the local council run care home this week. The facilities are basic, staff friendly and it does smell of pee. The council pay 279 a week and his pension, and the remainder he funds out of his savings. We will sell his house this summer and use that to keep him there until the money runs out. Its all horrible and so sad to see him propped in a chair all day. He won't be able to take part in any of the activities as he doesnt understand anything any more. He is incontinent and confused and its costing 800 quid a week to keep him there when he would be better off dead. I hope he dies soon and doesnt have to endure this horrible living hell for much longer.....

Please read the post about my grandmother chuffinAda. If a person is fit and health with no underlying diseases Alzheimers is a cognitive degeneration that affects the physical functioning of the body and death is the ultimate result. Because people often have an underlying condition few people reach the end stages of Alzheimers. It's absolutely heartbreaking.

I think much of the problem is that many old people are no longer taken care of for as long as possible by family members. My grandmother was looked after at home for as long as possible by my mother and grandfather - five years longer I think than most people would have coped with. That, I think is some of the issue. So many people today don't expect to take responsibility for their own elderly. And so many people do not think ahead at 65 and wonder what they might be able to manage at 80 or 85 and whether they will be able to cope with a move or upheaval at that stage in their lives.

DH and I are 55 (ish). We have just bought a large house. One of the reasons it appealed is that it will be easy to section off a part of it when we are old and live there, on the ground floor, possibly letting the rest of the house as we will be self-contained or allowing one of our children to take it over as their family home should they want to.

Alzheimer's isn't natural though, because if it was something that will inevitably happen to everyone, then it would happen to everyone. But it doesn't, there are people in their late nineties whose minds are still as sharp as they were 20 years previously.

I don't think it is about economies of scale though, and if it was then you're taking about a few quids worth of extra work sending out 100 invoices instead of 1.

The trouble is that people are living so much longer now and needing much more care.

I am approaching retirement, but I will still be a full time carer to 90 year old grandad who will hopefully live with us until he dies - but he may well live to 100 - by which time there is every chance that my health will be deteriorating.

My parents and my PIL never had to look after elderly relatives because back then people dropped down dead before the had a chance to develop dementia.

sefina

Is it not more about economies of scale? People buying 100 chocolate bars will get a better deal than someone buying one. It's easier and cheaper for a care home to (as an example) invoice a council for 100 people than to invoice 100 separate individuals.

On that basis then the difference in price should equate to the cost of stamp and 20 minutes' admin should it not - oops forget the stamp, it can be done by email and/or direct debit.

My grandmother looked after her parents. My mother looked after her parents. They all lived into their 80s. I shall look after my mother (father dead). My husbands aunts looked after his grandparents, his grandparents' families looked after their parents. All lived into their late 80s (and some had been down the mine). Only my grandmother had Alzheimers though - none of her brothers of sisters did. She started developing it at 70.

DH will look after his mother; I shall look after mine. We will make arrangements to look after ourselves so our children don't have to - we are able to do this.

My Mum spent (well I did with POA) about 60k per year and also received superb care in the home I judged most suitable for her individual needs.
It was worth using all her assets - she earned them, not me.

I can't think of anything more the home could possibly have done, but she still suffered horrendously for years.
I've decided to go the Dignitas route if ever the first signs appear of any condition I consider leads to an unacceptable quality of life. I still save for other eventualities and for general old age.

If you don't plan Dignitas, then it is highly risky to divest yourself of assets that would pay for care: you have abandoned your ability to choose the level and type of care.

If you are at the "mercy" of the state, you end up when and where they dump you. The grounds for choosing a care home will be cost, with no interest in the individual needs and preferences.
No, there is no reason to envy those without savings.

Btw, I favour a law to enforce single pricing, but I accept this would mean higher taxes, because state care will cost probably 10-20 % more.

Yabvvu, people can spend their money how they want.

Well should they spend their money as they want if the result is the rest of us tax payers paying for them when other tax payers save their money to pay for their care?

PtolemysNeedle, I agree that it should be a state service. Unfortunately it is not currently and expecting others to pay for it right now is treating it like an 'externality'. A good example of this is doing something because you expect someone else to pay for something. For example, some people fly dump stuff and expect someone else to clean it up for them. They do not consider the costs of their actions and do not think they should incur them.

BeaufortBelle, I agree with you with regards to paying living wage. I would like to see more protectionism in the UK.

JohnFarleysRuskin. I completely get that we should help our children. The whole part of being a good parent is to provide for your children. Some people will simply never have enough assets to pass down to their children. Some children are born and are immediately disadvantaged by their upbringing and the class of their parents. From the get go, it is a privileged position to be in to be able to pass any assets to your children. The people receiving free care in old age pass nothing to their children. Their children do not get an easy start to life. People believe in meritocracy until it applies to them or their children. Some children are incredibly lucky that their parents can gift them money or housing. Others will be working at low wages for life and will never accumulate any assets to pay for care. You might think it is unfair that you cannot pass your assets to your children, which is understandable, but is it not more unfair still that some children get nothing while others get everything handed to them?

I like this image and variations of it:
eariblog.edublogs.org/files/2013/10/justice-and-equality-1yr7wjs.jpg

It is not unfair that some children get nothing while others get 'everything' handed to them. It's a direct result of their parents choices.

It is unfair when children have unequal opportunity to progress in life, but the state already tries to balance that as best it can. The rest has to be down to parents. There will always be people who have more and less than each of us have, and who can give their children more or less. If you stop people being able to help their own children at a time when the cost of living is so high, all we end up with is a race to the bottom with the gap between the very richest and everyone else getting wider and wider.

We haven't had the luxury of investing in property, pensions have been screwed by higher contributions and lower pay out, taxes and childcare costs are disproportionate to income

Both my DCs and their partners are buying their own homes, have pension schemes and benefit from the free childcare hours that Boomers never had.

People in the same generation are not always having the same experiences.

I'd sooner have the option of assisted suicide than having to spend money on being looked after. I don't wish to be kept alive against my will or have to be looked after in any way.

Why do people have to pay to go to Switzerland to kill themselves. It's inhumane it costs thousands for personal care and thousands to visit Dignitas. C'mon, give us the bloody choice to save a bit of money and relieve our own suffering.

It's already perfectly possible to isolate yourself from people whose care is paid for by the local authority - certainly for residential care, although perhaps less so for a nursing home.

There are countless residential care homes that councils will not touch because they start at circa £1,000 a week. They - mostly - look very nice. Some even allow you to take your pet.

Really I wouldn't worry about being hard done by. Just choose somewhere where you won't find any council funded residents and then you will never have to experience the irksome discomfort of knowing you "saved" all your life blah blah while the shirking person next to you is getting their care for free. Sorted.

yes, chuffinada we've tried the OT adaptation route - this house is not physically possible to adapt
we're trying to find one of similar price which, as you say, we could get a grant to adapt
also must stay in area for dd's school
it's really bloody awkward

those of you who can't face being looked after or think it's a waste of money - let's hope you don't break your ankle
have you got a time limit on how long you can take to recover?
assuming you ever will...

julieascurr I've been a care of the elderly nurse working in care homes for 25 years now and, believe me, they're far, far worse than the public could ever comprehend

You think the stuff you see on Panorama is bad, you ain't seen nothing. We often have to choose between helping people to the toilet or feeding them. No time or staff to do both. A bath or shower once a week. No proper wash in between times. Sore skin as a result. Sore mouths due to poor oral hygiene. Infections. Dehydration. And the rest.

There is no way I'm going to be an elderly person receiving 'care'. No way.

To be honest though hiddenhome if I had to find a care home for my mother, I'd be visiting daily and if I was paying, say, £1000+ a week for her care, there would be absolute hell to pay and the owners of your home would have me to answer to as well as every other agency I could report you to. The reason being that there would be no benefits involved, the money would be coming from my mothers and my bank accounts and I would not stand for sub standard care.

Much sub standard care exists because the elderly are not visited regularly enough once in these homes and it is an abdication of responsibility from those responsible for them. I can assure anyone who works in a care home that if I found my mother in excrement, dirty, improperly looked after in any way, it would happen only once.

Presumably when one signs up to these homes there is a service level agreement about ratios of staff, toileting, feeding etc., and if these aren't being met then the homes are breach of contract.

yanbu
but I have relatives in a country where your close relatives, even if estesnged, are liable to pay for care costs and also debts can be inherited.

You have no idea of what goes on behind closed doors Beaufort. These things occur on a regular basis for whatever reason. Usually due to staffing levels. You think that the staffing ratios look okay on paper and are adhered to? Staff ratios deal with the bare minimum and that's all. Somebody phones in sick, you're stuffed. Residents suffer. The manager hires a person who's not cognitively up to the job, residents suffer. These places pay minimum wage. Staff vary greatly in terms of their caring abilities and intelligence. Some can't even figure out that a person needs a wash each day

Hidden, that sounds incredibly upsetting :( and outrageous

I think posters are forgetting that 'bad' homes know exactly what they're doing - hence why hidden cameras had to be used to bring successful complaints.

When I was looking for a care home for my mum, i found it a pretty shocking experience tbh. I reported one of the homes I visited to the care quality commission because I was so taken aback by the obviously substandard quality of the care - and that was what you could see as a visitor. I think Beaufort is absolutely right about the need to visit often.

Not everyone can visit every day. I know there will be days when dad doesnt get any visitors . I have to hope they are being nice to him....

PtolemysNeedle, the parents had equal opportunity in life.

The children did not. Why should new human beings suffer the choices made by their parents?

You are right, it is a race to the bottom. As people pass on wealth, the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer.

I am an advocate for 100% inheritance tax. Then we would live in an actual meritocracy rather than a nepotistic society. You get everywhere on your own back, by your own skills and capabilities - not by how and who you are born to.