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?

I sort of agree with inheritance being abolished. I believe this will help future generations much more than inheritance!!

What that will do is give people the clear message that they need to spend, spend, spend - otherwise it will all go straight to the government and their loved ones would never see a penny anyway.

The result of that will be that, as it's very difficult to judge exactly how much money you'll need for the rest of your life (or pre-care home life), especially considering that most of us don't actually know how long we'll live, people won't even bother to try and save and will err on the side of splurging and being penniless good and early so that the government money kicks in and none of their own gets 'lost'.

Maybe what we need is a system where you "have", or at least are strongly encouraged, to note your wishes regarding life extending treatments. That way there would be fewer difficult decisions for others to make regarding resuscitation, antibiotics etc.. It does seem to be the case that most (not all) people say they wouldn't want those kind of treatments if they had dementia, but if they don't say so while they can of course their families feel morally bound to keep the person going as long as possible. (And then there are the cases as described by @Bargebill19, where families aren't ready to let go.) There's definitely no easy answer but it would help a lot if more people wrote "living wills".

What that will do is give people the clear message that they need to spend, spend, spend - otherwise it will all go straight to the government and their loved ones would never see a penny anyway

Would that necessarily be a bad thing though, economy-wise?! It would definitely keep things moving, and the government could get money through VAT etc.. Of course the super rich would find workarounds though.

I have an advance directive which says that in the event of a diagnosis of dementia no other conditions are to be treated. No antibiotics, no tests, no CPR, just painkillers. It’s attached to my medical notes. Our solicitor assures me it’s watertight.

There are already systems in place where you can state your wishes should you ever reach a certain point in your life, regarding medical care. A lot of people talk about doing something - but unfortunately very few people actually go ahead with the process.
It’s always “I’ll deal with it later”. Later can be too late. Also it costs to do it.
Too those of you saying you want xyz to happen. Then sort out your lpas, advance directives and DNR. Speak to Age uk for more information and see a good solicitor.
For those seeing your loved ones receiving quite frankly poor care, complain to CQC and social services - LOUDLY AND REPEATEDLY with the facts. You might not achieve anything immediately, but you might get enough to change that someone else doesn’t have to suffer the same loss of dignity.
The system we currently have is all there is. We all need to work together to make it better.
Now I’ll say what some think of as swearing - often the only way you can make the worst situation better is to volunteer to try and make things better. So yes - for those complaining a home offers nothing for their relatives to do - volunteer to go in and just chat over a brew. Arguing over what you get for what you pay will change nothing.

Would that necessarily be a bad thing though, economy-wise?! It would definitely keep things moving, and the government could get money through VAT etc.. Of course the super rich would find workarounds though.

In some respects, no, it wouldn't; but if it were that simple, surely we wouldn't have the current pensions crisis and the government shouting at us from every side that we need to save for our future.

If it's self-generated money that's being spent, it will benefit the economy; but it won't help it at all if it's money that the government is having to hand out to be spent on necessities.

Sorry doormat

I think it's a great shame that there isn't a more competitive market for care homes - not just as in who is the cheapest, but as in who can provide the best service for the best price. Tesco know that if they charge £4 for a tin of beans, everybody will just go to Asda and buy them for the normal price.

As it is, the terrible ones are extortionate and the better ones cost even more than that. If people are expected to pay for it from their own savings or house proceeds, why are there no market forces for the person or their family to be in the driving seat and able to find a quality facility at a much more reasonable price, just like with any other commodity?

I appreciate that it isn't going to be cheap, and you're never going to find one for the price of a Premier Inn; but considering that most places are staffed by people on minimum wage, residents are usually left on their own or with each other for most of the time with very little staff interaction and you hear reports and see evidence of the people who own them becoming very wealthy from them, why are they so phenomenally extortionate?

I rather suspect that places in care homes are largely priced based on how much money the potential resident might have available to spend rather than on the actual intrinsic value....

Why do care homes cost a lot.
Staff costs - there are a phenomenal amount of staff needed for 24/7 care week after week. Holidays and sickness have to be covered. Pensions payments made. Training costs covered. Registration costs. Insurance costs. Cleaning costs. Maintenance costs. Gardening costs. Replacement for wear and tear costs. Back room staff to be paid. Specialist equipment to be purchased. Food to be purchased. Heating and lighting to be paid for. Business rates to be paid. Insurance costs. Maybe a bus for transport and it’s own associated costs. Possibly even a contingency fund for unforeseen future costs - maybe someone refuses to pay a bill etc.
It’s phenomenal. This is all before providing any activities over and beyond being sat in a chair with a tv on. Nursing care would be additional too.
We built this buffet... financial assessment are done by councils not care homes. They will only ask if you have the funds to pay and if you are expecting the council to pay. Some do not accept fully or partially funded by council, residents. That is their decision. Prices are set by overheads and if it’s a business.. profit. Business do not operate on a charitable basis, that is for charities, and even those homes will factor in a percentage for future contingency funds.

It’s nobody’s choice to be in a care home
Not true. My dad elected to move to one. He was very happy there.
Despite our best efforts, he was lonely after my mum died and had a few collapses and was worried about falling and lying on the floor for hours (despite having an alarm fob).
His home fees were over £6K a month. 2/3 of that was covered by his pension (why are posters saying that pension is "taken?" Of course it should be used to help fund care - what else is it for?). In the latter days, his care was fully funded, not because he ran out of money, but because his health needs were so severe at the end of his life.
Actually, a relatively small % of people will need care homes. I think it's something like 18%??? (Happy to be corrected) so maybe many of us are worrying over something that may well not happen for us.

CallmeAngelina. A beautifully balanced post.

I think a political came up with what I think is the best solution.
Everyone who dies aged over 65 pay a small percentage of their estate (about 2%) as a tax to the state for care costs, whether care was received or not. It acts as a sort of insurance, covers the cost of care, and doesn't load yet more taxes on the young.

@Bargebill19 - I know they have a lot of overheads, but many of those (not all) are similar for any business.

If you have a home with 30 residents and each is paying £6K a month (as per a PP's DF), how much of that £180K every month does it really cost for the overheads?

I know that care homes don't set prices individually for each potential new resident; indeed they won't know your individual financial circumstances - but they must have a very good idea of how much on average a person (certainly enough to fill all their spaces) of a certain age is likely to have in savings or equity, based on how much they're able to charge and still remain fully occupied.

so why should she be entitled to less than some scrubber

Misogyny much.

Different places have different fee structures. Some have a blanket amount, and some of their residents will probably pay for more than they use, whereas others use the full-whack.
The one my dad was in charged a basic (and I use that term loosely!) rate for the room/apartment and food (v high standard) and entertainment (LOADS available) and then three levels of care package above that, depending on need. So it could be argued that the board and lodging aspect of it ought to be self-funded (in that most people need to pay for their accommodation in life anyway), but it's the required care package that might be funded from the state.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll Most care homes need to run at 95% capacity to break even. For an average care home with both full and part time shifts, running at best practice ratios of staff to residents based on residents actual needs, you may need to employ as many as 80 staff per week. That’s a huge cost and some are on minimum some are on a little more due to experience and qualifications - but not a lot. Training is mandatory for all staff as well.

@Barbie222

I think we should try and move away from the idea of inheritance, it's something that traditionally only a very few benefited from and it's one of the main ways that injustice and unfairness has been perpetuated through history. So I'd be in favour of property reverting to the state on death, with a capped amount transferable to the next of kin if the deceased wished it.

^^ This would solve it.

Rich people would suddenly own no property, as it would suddenly belong to their families in Monaco or offshore.

The level of care largely depends on the carers. It doesn't matter whether you go private or state it is pot luck tbh.

yes I think Barbie's idea is a really good one but the people with the power to make the laws would never support or facilitate something which works against the mechanisms that put them in power

@Bargebill19

Fair enough, then - I'll take your word for it as I have no actual insider knowledge. I still find it hard to believe, though.

"Reverting" to the state?! They can fuck right off. The state never owned my family's property in the first place. No way would that ridiculous idea get voted in.
I happen to believe that if you need a different sort of accommodation in your final years then of course you should sell your house - in the same way as many nice out of small flats into larger places at earlier stages of their lives if the flat doesn't meet their needs. We don't expect the government to fund that.

Really hope I can live in one of those nice flats where you can still live independently in your old age😊

You just don't know how your health will be

Oh, and to the few people suggesting that care homes try to keep residents alive longer so they can fleece them of their mone... , just . What do you expect them to do? Stop giving them meds? Withdraw food? Whatever the resident's quality of life, it is not the place of carers or care homes to do anything but keep them alive and as comfortable as they can.

@Barbie222 I'm guessing you either haven't got your own home or you haven't got children as I fail to see how you would think this was a good idea if you had either! The state hasn't paid for my house so they won't be getting it when I've gone! If your idea was to work then the government would have to house us all in funded houses, but oh dear, they sold them all!