AIBU to try and prevent care home fees? Advice appreciated

[Watermelonsuns]

So my parents are elderly, both have health issues but managing well at home. My mum in particular would struggle if something happened to my dad. Recently a friend's parent had to go into a care home and as the parent owned their own house and savings they are self funding and the fees are crazy.
AIBU to try and find a way to protect my parent's property and savings in order its not all gone in care home fees in the last years?
Someone has suggested moving their property into my name but surely that would be an obvious way to avoid fees and would look dodgy? Is there another loop hole im missing? Aby advice from someone working in this area would be appreciated thanks

Can I also add that as someone who has been through the process of making very difficult decisions for my mum and also been left with the whole tasks of finding care, selling houses etc it is a good idea for the OP to find out sooner rather than later what needs to be done. Information is hard to come by in the heat of the moment so getting informed now is a good idea. Good luck to you and your parents x

Ps
I should say I detest all forms of discrimination without exception though
so I suppose my views simply follow that through.

I’m unclear which bit of my post you’re disagreeing with.

You say you want an equal system for all with no discrimination and I got that from your previous post I pointed out why I think separate conditions apply that could fairly lead to treating the two classes differently - you don’t seem to have addressed my reasoning around that at all, just repeated yourself. But if I don’t understand your objection to seeing those groups differently so it’s hard to reconsider my position.

I don’t see how the rest of your post has anything to do with the argument I made.

What are you actually advocating should change?

Your parents don't want to sell their house. Why? Are they going to take it with them when they go? Of course not, they want to leave a legacy for their children.

However, that money needs to come from somewhere. If the "government" pays for it, it's the rest of us that are paying higher taxes. Of course there is a very strong argument for paying higher taxes anyway, the roads are shit, schools are at breaking point, the NHS is on it's knees, but where does it stop?

I am of a generation where I am unlikely to see a state pension despite having paid my dues (just as your parents have, but they have benefited from it), so I save into a private scheme, otherwise I can't afford retirement (and even then, it's looking dodgy). The older generation benefitted from that. I am of a generation where university was not completely free anymore, so we took out loans, whilst the older generation benefitted from that. I am from a generation where house prices weren't sky-rocketing, but the older generation benefitted from that.

I've worked hard all my life life, my exit strategy is dignitas. I've paid my taxes, I've not benefitted. I'm a good earner, but I've had to rely on me, not the state and being self-employed I still do. There's no safety net for me if my work dries up. No claiming benefit. I have to live off my savings until they are gone.

Why are you and your inheritance so special? Just think yourself lucky you've had parents who have survived onto old age.

@Watermelonsuns hardly anyone gets a bed in a hospice, and when they do it is usually very end of life.

Many people believed that all the tax they paid would return to them when they most needed it and that their home would be able to be passed on to their families

this wasn’t an unreasonable expectation but things have changed

it’s likely too late to sign over their home so best the money goes towards the best care they can get

I think it is a pretty unreasonable expectation for anyone in their 80s or younger and probably for people in their 90s. The problems with funding social care have been widely discussed and argued over politically for at least 50 years. Anyone who has taken anytime to consider rather than blindly hope for the best should have been well aware that the country's finances won't be able to manage that for everyone. And it's not reasonable to financially assume when you haven't taken the time to look into it

Hard agree. I think anyone of my age who is planning on cashing in in retirement and having a high life with the expectation the state will step in when the money has run out and they are too decrepit to look after themselves is in for a hard shock.

My Aunt was in a home that also took people whose fees were paid by the council but because she was paying, she had a much better room that had French windows overlooking a garden. There were bird feeders just outside her room.
There are a few homes near me and 2 of them do not take people who the council pay fees for.

People who require support to live because for whatever reason they need that should all receive that without additional payment. Whether in their home, in hospital or in a care facility. Whatever is necessary.

Any income from pensions or benefits should be used as part payment as all people can pay in some way equally
Otherwise
If some don’t have to pay over and above their pension or benefits no one should.
It’s all about treating people equally and not discriminating against some.

[Additionally
Governments in power have neglected to see SC spending as an issue historically and are still doing so even though we now have an increasing number of younger people using social care. The bill will grow exponentially in the future and still Governments won’t face the reality that increased or additional taxes are the only way to fund SC even if they continue to discriminate some…..it still isn’t enough. ]

It seems obvious that increases in taxes are the only way to pay as
Everyone should be treated the same as part of our existing laws on discrimination

The alternative is reduction in services or spending in some other way…..I understand that’s already being looked at and assume it has in the past…..will that ever be enough anyway. Very doubtful.

apologies, not relevant to your thread OP

@DrPrunesqualer pensions are already taken. If the state pays your care home fees all your income is taken apart from £20 a week pocket money to pay for hairdressing, podiatry, clothes and toiletries.

It’s at best a staggeringly naive expectation but certainly crazy in a world where the elderly will hugely outnumber the young. This obsession with inheritance is a relatively recent thing - my parents never expected to inherit a bean from their parents and they got what they expected!

But people can spend their money on cruises and luxuries.
They have that right to enjoy their savings
Just because they do does not automatically mean they are deliberately trying to avoid paying care home fees and Councils cannot assume this.

Unless, of course, if they are on their last legs and know they need a care home soon.
I have never been on a cruise but a recent thing on tv followed some and the vast majority are retirees.

Yes I know that.
My MIL was in a care home as pp.

I plan to spend all or most of my money. I want to enjoy myself when I can.

My gripe is that there is a fee that the council pays and there is a much higher fee that self funders pay so the self funders are subsidising the council funded places. The actual cost of care is never discussed openly so things can be compared which you would do in any other area of life (except funerals).
If this subsidy happens then those homes who do not have council funded residents should cost less than those who do.
Any home managers on here care to comment?

Council.buys multiple places so they get a bulk discount, just like you do for buying a bigger pack of washing powder in the shops!

Can you elaborate?

Bullshit because there's no discount for staff or heating just because councils pay less than it cost to care for someone. It just means that their care costs are part-covered by self funders.

Bullshit because there's no discount for staff or heating just because councils pay less than it cost to care for someone. It just means that their care costs are part-covered by self funders.

It's the same with a care package in your own home. Care companies bid for the block booking from the council. Relative of mine was a self funder with home care package after a spell in hospital after a fall. Paid council for all the care every month. At one point the contract came to an end and the council switched to another company. To keep the same company as a self funder for this particular company was not far off twice as much. We had no idea how it worked until then

So why do you think it would have cost 50% more @Cosyblankets? Because it would have cost the real price of providing the care plus another bit to cover the shortfall in the council contracts, that's why. Councils can leverage a good deal but only whilst other people are covering their shortfall.

Yup. My FIL pays £10,000 a month. Yes, you read that right, though his daughter is not sitting back and accepting it.
The home have been quite clear that he is subsidising other residents.
His bank account is like a broken tap (I have POA) and he'll be down to £23,250 this year.

No they wont because once people stop taking them, in the vast majority of cases, the weight piles back on.

Address the causes of over eating and poor diet, esp in the young but no we wont do that, even though its far cheaper.

These drugs provide no incentive for healthy eating and will just make matters worse in the long.

Doubtless the decision to use these drugs on the NHS is being made by people who are over weight.

But the point here is there is the money for all sorts of healthcare, its just that we prioritise some sorts over others... ie the Elderly don't matter - in many areas, even those with the means to pay, cannot obtain support, either in a CH or for carers.

Discounts from bulk ordering are standard in every walk of life.

This is why you want to have your own assets and be able to afford care in a place better than what the council will pay for