To think that if you have the funds to pay for your care home needs then you absoloutley should?

[BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz]

Interesting chat with a friend the other day about the extortionate costs of care homes and how if you live in social housing/rental and are on benefits then the government will pay for your care yet if you have "worked hard all your life and want to leave something for your kids" you are made to sell your home / use savings to pay for your care.

Friend is of the opinion that everyone who requires a care home should have it paid for by the government. So essentially a "hand out" yet also is of the opinion that those on benefits are getting "hand outs" and looks on them with scorn.

My personal opinion is that if you have the means to fund your own care home needs then yes; you absoloutley should pay for some or all of that. Why should the government fork out millions for every care home resident in the country so that a vast amount of them can then hand their properties and extensive savings down to their children?

It's simply not viable to fund 100% of care home needs across the country and if you are the kind of person who gets smug about "paying my way all my life" to the tune of living mortgage free in a 300k plus home with vast savings then you should be happy to continue "paying your way" til the end.

I also pointed out to her that as she will be funding her own care she will likely have more say in where she goes.

The end result was we both agreed the best solution was to swerve the care home altogether but I wondered whether I was BU to expect someone who can afford to pay for their care to actually pay for their care?

the purpose of the care home is to liquidate the assets of elderly people and turn them into luxury cars for care home owners.

Well the purpose of the care home is to house and look after the residents.

As it stands, they are privately run businesses. The proprietors arent doing it out of the good of their hearts. There have to be incentives.

Whether that’s the right model or not is a different question. It’s a lot like childcare provision. A well funded, nationally run, system strikes me as a better approach. But that would require higher tax contribution.

Not all care home managers or owners are rich , but a few may well be. Depends on the area where the homes are I suppose and how good they are at their budgets.
If a higher percentage are paying the full amounts then they must make a profit.
Better drugs keep people alive longer too of course. Living for longer is only ok if you have your health!
I also have heard a lot of stories of the ex pats who come home when they are unfortunate enough to have cancer or Parkinson's as health care in Europe isn't as good as it is here for those diseases. Not much is mentioned about those either ; it's all a drain on resources when they haven't been paying in for years whilst living abroad!
Lots need to change but nothing will about all these health problems.

@Paintedmaypole I completely agree with you. The idea that dementia suffers are not ill is frankly a myth perpetuated by those who have never seen a loved one suffering upfront.

Dementia sufferers are definitely ill. It's just classified differently to an illness people understand better.
There are also a few different types as well.
It's very complex.

It’s not about whether dementia sufferers are ill, it’s how to fund the long term care required.

Clutchingon who should pay do you think?

When you use private insurance the first question they ask you is to determine whether it is acute or chronic. Because chronic long term illness is hugely expensive and they can’t cover it.

Same with the NHS taking on age-related illness not currently affordable unless someone has a suggestion.

£900k was mentioned below for one person, where does it come from?

A few points. If you think living costs and nursing costs should be split for people needing long term nursing how about the same for evrryone, ie pay 10 per week for food and heating when you are in hospital. This could help with funding for the chronically ill. Secondly , whilst dementia is a leading reason for needing care , other illnesses such as Parkinson's, heart failure, vascular diseases, stroke, severe arthritis etc lead to a need for nursing care eventually. I do not like the posts which refer to elderly people as a sort of sub species who are different to everyone else.

I don’t think they are different, I think they are my parents - who have kept working to late 70s unbelievably. They’re me and Dh soonish, well 25 to 30 years. And I worry for my children who will be one of a much higher number. I think it’s good to discuss rather than ignore.

I don’t mind a small contribution to use NHS I think people under value what they get and that would help.

Thing is we are different to younger age groups. We make the greatest demands on the NHS when we get old. I’m 66 and very rare in my age group in having no chronic health conditions and taking no medication. I’m very lucky but my luck will run out when dementia gets me and it’s very reassuring to know the money is there for my care when it’s needed.

Would taking out equity release loans be classed as deprivation of assets?

I would guess it would depend on what you did with the money. If you did it to maintain the house and pay for your day to day living expenses, I'd say not. If you gave it away to a child, maybe they would.

I think greater clarity around deprivation of assets would be a good thing.

What if you drew the money out and put it off shore? That's what some people do ; will that count? I bet MPs kids will be ok!

Well the purpose of the care home is to house and look after the residents
ostensibly yes, but they have a strong incentive to keep people alive for as long as possible irrespective of their quality of life just so long as the person has assets which can be liquidated.

ostensibly yes, but they have a strong incentive to keep people alive for as long as possible irrespective of their quality of life just so long as the person has assets which can be liquidated

Was just about to say this. How many people with, for ex, dementia would be happy to have no antibiotics etc and just kept comfortable until nature takes its course? (Which I think used to be the case.) I don't think money is the only reason we keep people alive as long as possible but I bet it's a factor.

Has anyone here read In The Midst Of Life by Jennifer Worth? It covers a lot of issues about keeping people alive long after quality of life has diminished.

*@BeanBag7

To be honest I disagree. I dont see why one person should pay thousands of pounds for care, while someone else gets the same care for free*

And I don't see why someone should be given a shit load of money from their parents, that they've done nothing at all to earn, so that the state can pay for their parents to be cared for. That's the ultimate in selfish greed.

A very simplistic question. Why should I support others who have had roughly the same financial life as me salary wise but chose to use it differently and can now not support themselves? Enough of my money has been wasted on wasters.

the care home takes grandma and turns her into a conduit via which her wealth is funneled into the coffers of the care home owner

I don’t think it follows that care home owners need to stretch out people’s lives for the money. Because the demand is there. Someone else will pay.

There should either be a cap on fee contributions or a system where the state covers a certain annual £ contribution for all those needing care (like all DC get the 30 free hours of nursery care) and beyond that you either self fund or apply for state funding to make up the difference.

Open question to the people (who have themselves saved) saying they don't want to pay for people who could have saved but didn't (and instead had holidays, fancy cars etc) - what's stopping you spending all your money so you get state funded care?
Morals alone?
Or taking the gamble that you can pass money onto your children?
What if neither the saver or spender has children to pass cash to, does that change things?

That’s a lifetime cap on fee contributions.

@tillytrotter1 🙄 people like you are the people I hate. Closed minded. Not seeing any further than their own nose. So many different factors affect people’s lives. Not everyone is dealt the same hand! As long as your ok though ..... would actually love to see one of you sit and say that to a person in that position though.. and to think YOU single handedly paid for that person. Behave.

ostensibly yes, but they have a strong incentive to keep people alive for as long as possible

But surely the opposite is unthinkable?

Even if we had a culture where euthanasia was more acceptable it absolutely wouldn’t be something they had any impact on whatsoever.

Keeping their customers alive is part of their job.

@LaurieMarlow sometimes it's a grey area though. Like my earlier example of antibiotics. My relative who had dementia was given then through about 3 winters when she had chest infection. Then on her last winter they decided not to, and she died. Given the choice many of us would probably not want the antibiotics at all id we were in a locked facility with dementia.

Wouldn’t the family be involved in decisions on care? Who would say no to antibiotics.

If not and the home solely decides and people were not kept alive with something as simple as antibiotics the outcry would be huge.