To think it's unfair to sell your home to fund care when older while others pay nothing.

[SonnyHoney]

I provide healthcare services to older people, which means I regularly visit care homes. It’s something I find quite upsetting at times. I see individuals who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgages, and are now facing care home fees of around £2,000 a week.

Meanwhile, others are living in the same care homes with their costs largely covered, aside from a contribution from their pension.

I say this as someone from a working-class background and daughter of an immigrant (El salvador) who has had to work incredibly hard to get to where I am financially. I’m also very aware that one day my own parents may have to sell their home to fund their care.
My mum, for example, has run a cleaning business for years, she’s up early every morning and has worked long, physically demanding hours. She hopes to pass something on, but realistically, I feel it will likely be used to cover care costs .

Before anyone says “Why don’t you just care for her yourself and keep the house?” And of course, if I’m in a position to do that, I will. But the reality is that with older age, there can come a point where needs become too complex, and care at home is no longer possible.

Obviously, those who don't have houses to sell need care and have to go to a care home, but my point is it just feels unfair, really.

Fifty fifth. Stop exaggerating.

In the same care home a self funding person pays far more for the same bedroom and standard of care than a person who gets it paid by the council. It's not fair that self funders on top of paying for their own care have to subsidise others.

It can be sold, DC get their half and parent 2 uses the other half to pay for care home.

By local authorities budgeting more effectively.

Realistically funds raised from selling homes is a drop in the ocean for care homes, it does not cover costs or come close. It's just stealing from people imo.

Compulsory private insurance
Other countries do it

💯

My mum is in a 2 bed worth 150k. She could not have released anything to give to either of us as she needed this home to live in. She will likely need to sell it for care costs and it would last 18months. She has worked all her life. I'm not saying I agree with the OP but your assumption that it refers only to people with larger homes than they need, or that people can downsize, is incorrect.

The care home ones are always interesting. Because they all go a bit gamekeeper turned poacher. Seems to be perfectly OK to expect your mother to 'scrounge' her care off the state so you can walk off with a free house. Even to share tips and hints on how to commit benefit fraud by disposing of assets so she can get the care for free, and you get the free house. Which is somewhat at odds with the usual zeal with which the public purse is guarded.

@Onemoremakesthree says they lost "their" house though. Which implies they were owner-occupiers? But you could be right. Maybe onemoremakesthree could clarify.

This is the real kicker, I think. Private funders should not be paying an inflated cost so that local authorities pay less for other people.

Also when people have deliberately got rid of assets or given their house to another family member or put it in someone else’s name

🎯

Care home owners drive round in top of the range cars and live in huge houses. Staff get paid peanuts. There is something very wrong with the whole set up.

It seems we are back to the “are there no workhouses, are there no prisons?” line of thinking.

That's as maybe, the point is was making was that it doesn't matter how the property is owned at the time person 1 goes into care. The house cannot be touched for those care home fees for person 1 as long as there is a spouse living in the property... the remaining spouse does not even need to be on the deeds. .. the same applies if there is no spouse, but a dependant relative - who won't be joint tenants, or tenants in common, an adult child with disabilities for example..

I think that the point being made is that the person who is diligent and buys a house is expected to pay that money into their care whereas the person, maybe on the same income, who chooses to piss it away all their life is state funded. From my own memory of teaching where we all knew roughly what each other earned there were vastly different attitudes to self responsibility and the ones who are careful through their lives always finish up funding the wastrels.

When was this? Why was she sent to a nursing home if she didn't have nursing needs? Also, care homes don't have the ability to "drug people up" and a nurse wouldn't be able to make a diagnosis of being mentally impaired on admittance.

I think the real kicker here is that care home owners are getting very rich at the expense of vulnerable people.

@YouBelongWithMe

The thought of being reliant on family members, or an extended care system, and living a much-diminished quality of life, fills me with dread.

Same here. There have been a few threads on MN lately with a number of posters stating they would rather just die suddenly/die in their sleep at 68-70 as a fairly (seemingly) healthy mobile person with capacity. Rather than have something go wrong with their health, like dementia - or any kind of life limiting illness that means you can't walk, or bathe yourself, or feed yourself, and are virtually immobile, and have to depend on people to do your shopping, do all your life admin, make your meals, and even wipe your bum, (and then live like this for a further 15-20 years or more!)

I love going for walks - 2-3 mile ones 6 or 7 days of the week, and to Nature Reserves, the river, the canal, little market towns, tourist place, woodlands, stately homes, little farms and zoos, lakes and pools, the beach etc, and whilst I do go with DH, DC, or a friend sometimes, I also like to go alone. I drive usually, but sometimes get the bus or train. The idea of not being able to do this, and be trapped inside my own home, unable to even leave the house without assistance is abhorrent to me.

I'm a free spirit and very independent, and would HATE to be dependent on someone else to do everything for me. As has been said it's about 'quality over quantity' ... Like once a dog or cat's quality of life has diminished, (or any animal!) they PTS, yet they seem to want to keep humans alive at any cost, no matter how dire their quality of life is. WHY?!

It’s because all the council owned care homes have been sold off to private developers to demolish and create these lovely sparkling care homes charging £2000 per week. I am going through this with my mum, I have been to visit a care home today and I asked where are the council run dementia homes are in our area, I was told their were none!

I quite agree.

Higher taxes to fund high quality universal health care, social care and education, subsidised childcare.

VAT on school fees was a start, a wealth tax including cracking down on big tech companies and tax avoidance schemes.

But people who’ve ‘worked hard’ don’t want that either.

Exactly this. I don’t pay taxes so rich people can hand property down to their children. If you’re so desperate to get your hands on your parent's assets, care for them yourself.

Onemoremakesthree's post also says

Had they not have rented their house, mum would have had the exact same care for free and dad would still be living in the ‘home’ they shared

I appreciate you must have seen many people in awful situations in care homes but some elderly people do want to live longer if they have good conditions. They're not automatically wasting away.

Some countries have parental fealty laws where adult children are required to help out a bit by law.