To think older people need to sit up and take notice of this

[OwlOfBrown]

So the Tory manifesto includes a plan to make (elderly) people pay for their own social care costs until they are down to the last £100K of their wealth. Andrew Dilnot, who chaired a commission on social care costs during the coalition government which suggested a cap of £35,000 on care costs borne by individuals, has condemned this plan.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/tory-social-care-plan-example-market-failure-andrew-dilnot

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-19286845/andrew-dilnot-on-social-care-cap-and-inheritances

I know a lot of MN'ers will say that this is fair, and I do have some sympathy with that opinion. Why should someone be able to sit on hundreds of thousands of pounds of wealth when the state pays for their care? But is it really fair? What about when others have the same amount of wealth but enjoy the good fortune of not needing social care so get to keep their wealth? After all, we don't make people with long-term illnesses pay for their medical treatment (yet...) so what is different about social care?

Debate away - I'm interested to hear other people's opinions on this.

I agree. First signs of a degenerative MH disease like alzheimers or parkinsons and I wish to be off. Thank you very much. I don't wish to be a burden on society or the children.

My own opinion is that

1. No - one should rely on an inheritance
2. You should not rely on the state to pay for your later years care in order to protect an inheritance for your children / other beneficiaries .
3. £35k cap - I don't know - I don't have the numbers but I'm guessing the numbers don't stack up to give universal care home care to all , so it needs people to contribute - and out of assets seems fair to me.

4. The point about living longer / choice is a big point. Dh would switch off a button or ask me to in the drop of a hat. Unfortunately , for many illnesses / conditions , it is not so simple. Ie the patient isn't given that choice or the decisions are not so stark.

One can of course pass most of one's assets to one's children and live a modest life in a small property. This would safeguard the assets for one's children.

I still do not get this about entitlement to some inheritance for children.

Can someone enlighten me here.

Susan - Not sure what you are asking - can you explain ?

susan There is no 'entitlement', although I suspect you already know that.

However, people can choose to do what they wish with their own money. Some people get strangely uppity about others receiving an 'inheritance' but it's really not much different to parents paying into their children's savings accounts, choosing to give their children an advantage in life by paying for a better education, or giving them expensive gifts which, if you close the door on guaranteed inheritances, is exactly what people will do.

'What has how long you live got to do with it? It is an illness, illness isn't treated because of how long you will live is it. Some people with dementia don't last long and some people with cancer get treated for years.'

The difference is most cancer patients don't wind up requiring 24/7 care for years and years. Plenty of them are able to care for themselves at home or with minimal support and even work during some of that time. Some wind up with significant disability and are treated the same as anyone else with significant disability who requires social care, the difference is the requirement of social care, that's the big issue here, as has been pointed out by numerous posters. Rates of cancer are rising, too, because believe it or not, the biggest risk factor for cancer is age, the body just doesn't do as good a job of proper cell division or the immune system of spotting rogue cell growth.

There are even age cut offs for some treatments, not because of discrimination but because of the fact that survival chances are minimal to none. Not to mention, plenty of treatments, even for children, are not available on the NHS.

You may also, if you are not even adult but of competency on the Gallick scale, elect to end treatment.

You cannot do this if your mind is not sound due to dementia or any other similar illness.

This is why I believe in Living Wills, medical POA, and legalised assisted suicide, including for those who make such a decision when they are of sound mind in the event that they become mentally compromised by illness, as it often happens with some conditions that the patient is unable to recognise his/her own deterioration until it is too late, or at the very least Living Will to allow withdrawal of medical treatment.

Part of the problem is inability and distaste at discussing one's own mortality or even recognising it. Hence, threads on here with the overwhelming tone that if you 'do it right' and engage in certain lifestyle behaviours, you will not suffer disease. Loads of awful threads about bereavement, or labelled 'morbid'. What's needed is more acceptance of our mortality and discussion of it.

Oh and one more point, if anyone has an elderly parent or relative, - do a Power of Attorney ( well 2) , both Financial and Property and the other one is Health and welfare , if you can , whilst your relatives are of sound mind. If you can, believe me , it would help. I realise that is not the point of the thread , but I will say it anyway. Things are harder if you don't. Sorry to slightly derail but just wanted to say. It really makes things easier.

I think those with assets might feel they should leave them to their children or other heirs. Anything but the Government.

But now, it is a different story. If they need care. Blind spot maybe.

Pay for your own care, why should the tax payer. Its not an accident or emergency its OLD AGE, save up, get insurance or use your house to pay for your old age.

'Oh and one more point, if anyone has an elderly parent or relative, - do a Power of Attorney ( well 2) , both Financial and Property and the other one is Health and welfare , if you can , whilst your relatives are of sound mind. If you can, believe me , it would help. I realise that is not the point of the thread , but I will say it anyway. Things are harder if you don't. Sorry to slightly derail but just wanted to say. It really makes things easier.'

I couldn't agree more! In many US states you can do medical POA, or other forms of POA or even durable POA, which covers just about everything. You can, in some states, also sign DNR, particularly if you have certain health conditions such as coronary artery disease, liver disease, COPD or other pulmonary conditions, etc. One doctor went as far as advising, have DNR/DNAR/AND (allow natural death) tattooed on the left side of your chest after you've signed such documents.

Also, make your wishes known whilst you are of sound mind! Both my parents have purchased funeral plans, a plot, even a headstone and instructions for inscription, also been open with how they want any service to proceed. Both have durable POA over the other, and my father DNR due to his coronary artery disease and prostate cancer. And made it clear where all the documents are, where cards are for their solicitor and their funeral director, financial documents and wills, etc. in the event they both die at the same time or one dies and the other's mind becomes compromised. In such case, I have medical POA on them, and will act on their wishes. My sister can't bear to hear any of it, 'It's morbid!' It's common sense when you're 76 and 81 years old, ffs!

Not every old person gets dementia and not every person with dementia is old.

Why do people see paying for care as any different to food, clothes, heat etc? You pay for what you can and the state picks up the bill in extremis. We don't pay benefits to people with 100k of assets, so why should care be paid?
NHS is not free for people with eyesight problems who have assets. they need to pay for treatment - why is care special?

Also, if you have dementia sufficiently to need paid for care, what are you going to do with the money? It has no real value to you except in making your life as comfortable as possible.

Expat - I am of one accord. FiL would not do either of the POAs. I am not sure people realise how little influence you have ( in our case my DH so , son, not spouse / partner - MIL had already died) over decisions ( - DH was next of kin for his father ) or indeed access to their medical records etc , even when he (FIL) was in hospital. It was stressful. And had they sorted it out , unnecessary.

Just because you fill out a form does not mean to say you are going to die. DH and I have already done POA for DS - it makes no sense not to. It's like a will - just because you do it doesn't make you morbid or likely to be run over by a bus - it's just sensible. Well, in my view.

Personally I would like to see an assisted dying law passed. I, for one, do not wish to use my assets to pay for care simply to keep my body going when I no longer have any quality of life. Why should I be forced to pay for something I have no choice in? Why should I be forced to line someone else's pockets in those circumstances, rather than those of my own family?
I'm also in agreement with you on this OP

Can I urge all of you to read this regarding deprivation-of-assets.

www.payingforcare.org/deprivation-of-assets

The council have the power to reclaim monies given away from those the money was gifted to. If you can't pay it back, then they expect you to sell your assets to clear the debt. There is no limit on how far they can go back when looking at the finances of someone who is now claiming care costs. Councils are going to be more likely to pursue the recipients of gifts in the future as they scrabble around for money to make the books balance.

I agree with previous posters. We need to accept we age and die. Somewhere in the past, dying became unacceptable despite it being inevitable. We are kept artificially alive with drugs and machines WAY beyond our natural life span. My gran bellowed at her sister not to ring 999. They sat together on grans bed where gran passed away quietly on her terms, just weeks into becoming unable to physically care for herself. She was mentally sound it was physical deterioration and she felt strongly that nobody wants to end up helpless after living a full independent look life. I feel the same. I'll be having a walk in the coldest of winter inappropriately dressed before I get to that stage.

"Why do people see paying for care as any different to food, clothes, heat etc? You pay for what you can and the state picks up the bill in extremis. We don't pay benefits to people with 100k of assets, so why should care be paid?"

That is a good point - although you could equally well say why do people see paying for 'social care' as any different from paying from healthcare on the NHS? Particularly as the need for social care often derives from a health condition - eg dementia, but other illnesses as well. Which brings me back to my earlier question - we don't ask rich old people to pay for their cancer treatment (except through taxation) - so why ask them to pay for their social care? Why not put a charge on their house to repay the cost if they have triple bypass surgery?

Anyway, I think people's attitudes to the manifesto proposal really depend on their view of inheritance. It's a bit like Jane Austen - to half of us t's supremely unimportant and to the other half it's very important indeed to be able to leave their assets to beneficiaries. It's something very instinctive I think - neither side really comprehends the other!

I should add she left no estate. She had refused to buy her council house many times over the years despite pressure and ever cheaper offers from the council. She maintained someone else who needed it should get it, not us for a quick buck. She was an amazing woman and I miss her. But by god I'm happy she went on her terms with dignity.

The person who said unthread about the elderly in houses that are now worth thousands through no effort on their part, what about paying a mortgage for 25 or 30 years and going without holidays etc to pay for a roof over their head. We really to have the politics of envy in this country.

Actually chestervase what was said is that the massive increase in equity has been achieved through no efforts of the person's own, simply through house price inflation. Not the equity achieved from paying off the mortgage, although do be aware that the erosion away of debt through inflation meant less need for treat reduction for people paying off mortgages at that time.

This isn't the politics of envy. It's a fact. Whether you like it or not. Some of the sums involved run into the six figures, occasionally seven. You simply don't get that kind of wealth by giving up a few holidays. The idea is nonsensical.

Anyway, I think people's attitudes to the manifesto proposal really depend on their view of inheritance. It's a bit like Jane Austen - to half of us t's supremely unimportant and to the other half it's very important indeed to be able to leave their assets to beneficiaries. It's something very instinctive I think - neither side really comprehends the other!

I actually think there is also a third group. Those that don't particularly like it but understand why it may be necessary.

I would also like to see a more humane legal view of assisted dying, however I am deeply uncomfortable with linking it to rising care costs & inheritance.

Also I've read with interest the posts about people blowing their money as they won't be able to leave it to their kids. I've no doubt some will do this, but as the majority of people's assets mainly comprise their home and not that much else, for a lot it will mean downsizing. Given that many people now don't downsize even in their own interests because staying in their home is too important to them, I expect there'll still be plenty who won't downsize in someone else's.

But for those who do, and give the money to their children for house deposits instead, maybe there'd be a positive effect of that even if it does mean the money can't be used for care (which I doubt actually, I think clawback will get more restrictive). We know there are areas where there's a shortage of family homes and also elderly under-occupying family properties. We know that it's easier to live and receive care in something small and suitable than in a big house. If this encourages people to house themselves more efficiently as they get towards old age, which likely would delay the age they need care in the first place, that's arguably positive.

My mother has self funded for over four years, perfectly happy, that her money was spent on her care.
What this does not address is appalling care. Not talking about actual carers, good and bad among them, but the attitude that elderly are not quite human. That comes from Adult Care. And nowt family or money can do about it.