Aibu to be pissed parents have no life insurance

[pregnantforever]

Parents are in their 50s although my dad has the health of a 70year old. They don't take care of themselves and my dad moans every day about how awful his health is but rarely does anything about it.
He makes stupid decisions that are unsafe. Hes self employed and works lots of hours (manual job) with no need to (mortgage free, own their own car, have savings ect). He seems to almost brag about it. Last week sat saying he had had to work in the dark all day in a house where there was no light or electric, in the freezing cold with leaking water everywhere. We all pointed out that he had done this by choice, he's self employed and it's not worth risking his life for, he could have waited until the next day when some of those issues were sorted out but he didn't want to. We said we thought he was irresponsible and he walked off in a big mood.
I told my mum I hoped they had good life insurance if he was going to carry on making stupid decisions like that because she will be left growing old by herself, and she said they had none, and that there was no point in getting any because it would be expensive and their house was paid off anyway.
I don't think owning a house means much. If one of them needs care they will be up shit creek without a paddle. They both insist they want to stay in that house and never go into a care home ect, and my brother won't have anything to do with looking after them, he's not inclined like that. I have a spinal cord injury and don't want all of the burden of taking care of them or one of them being forced to sell up to pay for their care. Surely if they had life insurance then that would at least cover some costs should one of them take a turn? Or do I just need to keep my nose out massively and not worry? I've never asked anything about it before so had no idea they didn't have it.

Whinnie your position is sensible. As a single parent leaving a policy that will contribute to childcare, etc.

When our children were young the main concern for us was the childcare costs to allow the surviving parent / guardian to be able to continue working to keep food on the table.

If it is a joint bank account the account is not frozen. The remaining person named on the bank account can still withdraw cash etc.

When our children were young the main concern for us was the childcare costs to allow the surviving parent / guardian to be able to continue working

Quite. A worryingly common situation (I have seen this twice) is "he works and has death in service on his pension, she is SAHM with no life insurance, they are just about solvent on one income". She dies, and he is in the unenviable position of needing to continue to work at the same pace in order to pay the bills (less, possibly, the mortgage, depending on precisely what life cover was in place on that) without any additional money to cover the massive child-care responsibilities or, indeed, to take a period of unpaid leave to be with his children.

When we had school age children we had periods of each of us working with the other doing child care while working part time or studying. It was the latter we piled the life insurance onto.

NotStressedOut google joint accounts and one person losing capacity.

If one person has lost the capacity they can no longer agree to the t&cs of the bank account. Whilst it may not happen if the bank doesn't find out that one person has lost capacity they are legally bound to protect the one that has and can freeze withdrawals etc without an LPA.

If your partner dies when they are under 60, the Government gives a one off payment of £4k plus a weekly contribution for a year. That would pay for a funeral.

If your partner dies when they are under 60, the Government gives a one off payment of £4k plus a weekly contribution for a year.

If you have a time machine and can backdate their death certificate to before Aptil 6 2017, yes.

It's now £2500 (if you aren't eligible for child benefit) or £3500 (if you are, and no, I don't know how this interacts with the earnings cap on CB) and eighteen months of payments of £100 or £350 respectively. If you aren't eligible for CB, the total_ over 18 months is only £4300.

Yes I was wrong, it is not £4k. This is the entitlement.

Bereavement Benefit
Widowed parent’s allowance - £119.90

Bereavement Support Payment
Standard lump sum - £2,500
Standard rate monthly - £100
Higher lump sum - £3,500
Higher rate monthly - £350

No it is not a large amount, but if money is very tight, it all helps.

yabu, you don't need life insurance if you have savings. They have paid off their home so I am guessing they have accumulated savings by now which would cover funeral and other expenses.

We don't have life insurance. We have enough savings to pay funeral costs. I paid for my Mum's funeral out of her estate.

Dh has life insurance with work, and I have a decreasing term which will continue til after we have paid off the mortgage.

I am unfussed after that, as we only had it to cover the mortgage and as ds is 23, we don't have to cover him.

OP you're coming across very grabby more interested in the inheritance.

I'm in my 50's, mortgage paid off 10 years, have savings, have our graveyard plot and the younger child will be finished college in May, I don't have life insurance though my DH has through work but I will not be taking out life insurance. If we need nursing care in the future we have savings and a home to pay for it.

My mother in law died with no life insurance and didn't own her home, we got £1,200 towards her funeral from the government the family had to chip in with the rest.

People do not always see the small print about over 50's life assurance, but it has to say that you may pay in more than your family receive in payments.

The time is coming when people will have to look after their elderly relatives and it might be prudent to investigate some sort of insurance which pays out if you have to give up work to care for parents. Young adults will also have to treat their parents as they hope their children will treat them and bring them up to realise that. We can no longer rely on the state to care for us. The elderly living now had no NHS before 1948 and had to pay for their medical treatment and then contributed to the NHS all their working lives in the belief that it and the Social Services would care for them and that is no longer the case. They lived through the WW2 and suffered food shortages, housing damage and medical expenses from bombing raids and rationing into the 1950's yet now they are treated badly by the NHS who blame them for blocking beds etc - in fact being alive - and no one wants to know, yet without them putting up with all that we would not now be free. Adults in work now should not have to worry about that because they know that they will have to make arrangements for their care in old age and can prepare for it. The elderly now cannot and should be helped.

Very few people can afford to pay for care for aging relatives with say dementia. And no insurance policy is going to cover this.
This is why in the past before the state covered it, few people went into care homes. Relatives did the care. Or people died from neglect. I have read accounts of the local parish priest castigating people for neglecting their relatives.
So either the state cares for those without the money. Or we accept that those without relatives who can or will care for them, will die of neglect.