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 actually think the care should be free or at least heavily subsidised. I think the accommodation should not automatically be free.

If you leave a council house to go into a care home then there is a house available for a family who need it, if you leave a home you own unattended then you should have to pay for accomodation.

I think the issue is complicated by the fact that some people nned more care than others. My MIL is 80 and lives in a warden cared for flat with regular carers throughout the day. My mum is the same age and manages to live in her home without assistance. Both our dads died over 10 years ago both from cancer.

I'm looking at a future where I am likely to need more care than most as I have MS, I'm in my 40's and already have a lot of mobility aids, that even my mum doesnt need. I am likely to need more if my MS declines. How is that fair, that I will need to pay significantly more in care home fees when the time comes (and some MS suferers my age are already in a old persons care home as there are now no safe care homes for younger people).

Its not a one size fits all, some will need significant care for many years, some may not need any at all. I'm not saying the State should pay for it all, but I dont believe there is an easy answer that makes it fair to all.

How is that fair, that I will need to pay significantly more in care home fees when the time comes (and some MS suferers my age are already in a old persons care home as there are now no safe care homes for younger people).

How is that any different to the way that some people who develop dementia will need more care (therefore need to pay more) than people who don’t?

I think it’s silly to try and approach it with ‘how is this fair’, when in reality some people will be more unwell in old age than others and therefore the care they require will be more expensive. I don’t see how you can expect fairness when you’re talking about people’s health and care needs.

Phase 1 of the Grenfell report was only released yesterday Fucking yesterday. And already and yet again we have a thread making assumptions about people who live in social housing. Im so fucking sick of it.

And you do realize that some of the people who work in these care homes live in social housing because their wages are too low to qualify for a mortgage.

Never has a General Strike been needed so badly It might wake some fuckers up.

People who make the argument that they shouldn't have to pay for care 'because they have worked all their lives' are probably the very people who wouldn't vote for higher taxes to cover the costs of anyone who needs care

Also 'having worked all your life' doesn't make you morally superior to people who haven't. Many people haven't because of disability, family circumstances, bad luck. Should they just not get care?

And - and this is really important - having money gives you choices. Op, your friend who would likely pay for care herself should she need it will have a choice of care homes, whilst council funded people will only have a limited choice of council funded care homes.

If you reach retirement with substantial assets to your name, you haven't had a bad lot in life, frankly.

And the people who could equally have substantial assets but decided instead to live it up and spend it rather than save? They should get free care? That's what I don't agree with.

If you made a choice to spend rather than save then I don't see why you benefit from that choice by saving thousands in fees. Otherwise we might as well all do that -live for today and let the state worry about looming after us when our money runs out.

I think it’s silly to try and approach it with ‘how is this fair’, when in reality some people will be more unwell in old age than others and therefore the care they require will be more expensive. I don’t see how you can expect fairness when you’re talking about people’s health and care needs.

Except that this is exactly the guiding principle of the NHS - or does that not matter any more when it comes to old people?

And the people who could equally have substantial assets but decided instead to live it up and spend it rather than save? They should get free care? That's what I don't agree with.

I completely agree with you.

Unfortunately we do live in a society where those who work hard (FT workers on average+ salaries) - pay hard! Taxes, NI, student loans, dental, childcare, care homes...whilst those who don’t really contribute to the system in the same way (unemployed/Very low income) are simply provided it for free

Elderly parents can avoid paying by signing over their homes/assets to their kids well in advance of needing FT care- I know several people who have done this and I don’t judge

No You reserve your judgement for those on a low income some of whom work in the care homes.

Sickening.

I do agree with you OP but somehow there needs to be much better regulation that recognises that these old people are not simply cash cows to be fleeced by private sector care providers until they either drop dead or run out of cash, whichever happens first. There is an alarming lack of oversight in this sector and people needing this kind of social care have limited, if any, choices and no power. I understand why it makes people so angry to have to pay out eye-wateringly huge sums for substandard care.

There was a poster on here a while ago called NewspaperTaxis When you have time do a search.

Shocking experience.

I agree with the posters saying that there should be a nationised care service. It was a big mistake when local authorities started to put assistance in the home out to tender for private companies to run. The people running these business have to make a profit, that is the nature of a private company. The standards drop, carers are underpaid ( travelling expenses not paid which leave them on less than the minimum wage in rural areas) and the owner drives round in their range rover. The people in nursing homes are actually ill, the NHS was supposed to cover cradle to grave from taxation etc

People who make the argument that they shouldn't have to pay for care 'because they have worked all their lives' are probably the very people who wouldn't vote for higher taxes to cover the costs of anyone who needs care

Nope. I would absolutely pay higher taxes to see dementia patients get the same NHS care as cancer patients.

As an aside, the money this government has already spent on Brexit (billions) could likely have been use to fund every care home patient who needs it instead.

I do agree with you OP but somehow there needs to be much better regulation that recognises that these old people are not simply cash cows to be fleeced by private sector care providers until they either drop dead or run out of cash, whichever happens first

This.

Some of the attitudes on here are pretty shameful.

Some of us don’t want the appalling standard of care a nationalised care service would provide. I most definitely don’t. I want to pay if it comes to it and be locked after properly in pleasant surroundings.

I’d prefer everyone to be billed for their care needs, including those on benefits. If you can’t pay then you can’t have care, your family will have to look after you.

My Mum owns her house and has other assets. So my brother and I do stand to get a healthy inheritance eventually. However if my Mum needed care I'd rather the house was sold to ensure she/we could choose where she goes and get her the best possible. The way I see it the money in her house etc is there due to the hard work and saving she and my Dad did. Its only right that first and foremost she should benefit from that. If eventually my brother and I do too that to be is a bonus

If you can’t pay then you can’t have care, your family will have to look after you.

What do you do with those who don't have family or whose family can't/won't look after them?

Throw them out on the streets to die?

Funding everyone’s care isn’t possible so yes those with assets should use those.

I'm dreading getting old.
My dad is nearly 98 and hasn't his own house ; his old place has gone back to the council. He has to pay full fees for his care home ( he has Alzheimer's and mixed dementia) and his savings are whittling away. No help for this old veteran!
( can't even get continued health care as his dementia isn't bad enough)
If he had cancer etc it would be paid for!
It's not fair for him ; always paid in didn't claim any benefits , paid rent all his life etc.
It does annoy me but it is what it is. (He should have spent his savings down to the threshold then asked for help but he isn't like that! )
The home are good, but it's not perfect. They are stretched like everyone else.
I don't want to live as long as he has but it's not something you can control!

So how do family members who are on zero hours contracts care for the elderly in their family then. Without permanantly losing hours or getting a UC sanction.

@StinkGhoul i completely agree with your posts.

I don't think everything can and will be fair. It is good the government subsidises those who cannot afford it. I do get the argument about it being unfair that you work hard and then have to pay for your care while others get it for free but it happens at working age. Some people work hard for their money others are supported by the social system. I think the great thing about this country is the government takes care of the most vulnerable. Living longer means we have to chip in to take care of our life expenses and I do think it is unreasonable to expect large inheritances when a loved one lives to an advanced age as that money should be spent on them and making their life comfortable. I also think it is unfair for the government to effectively cover the cost when you can afford it so one can pass on private assets to another person, effectively funding your inheritance when there are more vulnerable people in society who the money is better spent on.

The government needs to cap care home fees at an agreed level eg lifetime maximum of £150000. This would allow the insurance industry to sell products to cover this risk.