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.

It needs ecomonic growth, not higher tax.

Pretty much yes if you have money you can afford the much nicer rooms with the nicer view but if you’re being subsidised by the council you get the shitty room with the shitty view. When I worked in a care home the ones who weren’t paying got the rooms in the basement with a view of a brick wall or nothing but peoples feet walking past the window. But whether you’re paying or not you still get the same level of care the money goes towards everything they all need.

My nan on my mum's side was an alcoholic and a very abusive one, my mum and her siblings ended up living with my grandad which in the seventies was highly unusual. She did work mainly cleaning or bar work issued cash in hand. In later life she claimed benefits , initially for private rented accommodation then she was given a space in an over 55s sheltered accommodation type place all paid for, she had a husband who didn't work the entire time I knew him (about 30 years) after being laid off from a supermarket in the early 80s. He also lived in the sheltered accommodation he died first and didn't go into a care home, she did. It was all paid for by the state. There were other people in there who had worked hard their whole lives and were paying thousands a month to subsidise someone like her. It's not right.

I want my dm to spend her money living her life, if there’s nothing left to pass to a care home, so be it. I want to die quickly or be able to choose assisted dying. Whether you think the concept of inheritance is unfair or not I don’t see how some people paying ££££ to care homes is the best way to get a meritocracy.

Most people who own a property have choices, particularly older people who benefited from soaring house equity in the 80’s/90’s. If you know absolutely that you want to pass some wealth on then you have to plan early and for many this will mean downsizing to gift money to children. This is exactly what me and DH will be doing in the next few years and we are early 50’s.

My mum is in a care home and sold her flat and is currently using the proceeds to fund her very expensive care. No issue with this, just concerned about what happens when it runs out.

I wonder if, as we move towards a society where people seem to be more in favour of quality over quantity of life is prioritised, assisted dying will become an option for those with amassed wealth, and state-funded care homes will be the default for those without the luxury of choice.

More nonsense 🙄

If very few people need care then why don’t councils pay the actual costs for all elderly

because there isn’t enough money

So
Councils need more money
We can get that by taxing more or introducing a compulsory insurance scheme of sorts
or reducing all benefits

Either way just because very few use the care system is meaningless. It’s the overall cost not the numbers.

Remember that with a couple sometimes one goes into a home first and gets their care government funded as the other person still needs a home to live in. This can skew the numbers of those getting the free care.
I am a reasonably young widow at 60 with property and if I need care in future will have to pay. I have no problem with that. It's enough to me that the younger generation (who I think already have it harder than previous generations in a lot of ways) will pay for me to get a pension.

Yes, of course it's unfair, but so are many other things in the welfare and benefits system. There's little incentive for many to work at all these days, or to save up for a house when they can get everything at taxpayers' expense, including care home services.

So what was the motive for setting up the trust?

Care/nursing homes are run as businesses for profit, that's the issue. My Dad spent the last month of his life in one (cancer) and the care was horribly lacking. The food dreadful, dreary cheaply furnished rooms, agency staff on most shifts, no continuity of care whatsoever. It was so bad that the palliative care team Dad was under ended up sending in the district nursing team to give medication/care. My daughters and I had to set up a rota to be with Dad 14 hours a day to make sure he was being cared for - his flat wasn't suitable as we couldn't swing a cat in it let alone a hoist and Dad was completely immobile by this stage.

The homes that will take council rates for care are largely the ones that can't attract better private paying residents.

Good. Me too. But lots of people don't want to, unfortunately.

We pay taxes for the services we as a population use our entire lives - schools, roads, police, hospitals etc

Truth is, it doesnt really matter how fair it is, in not so many years there will be fuck all money to cover peoples old age and those who cant provide for themselves are going to be fucked. Royally fucked.

To answer your question would I sell a car to pay for hospital care? If i had to, yes, of course. If the alternative was poor hospital care and I had the means to get better care then my car would be a price worth paying.

But we can't take our money with us when we die, so we might as well spend it on the best care home we can afford!

YANBU but we’ve created a system whereby working and not working both lead to very similar lifestyles. The safety nets are so strong that not working isn’t as precarious as it was, the state will simply house and feed you. And if anyone tries to do anything to recalibrate so working offers a nicer lifestyle and therefore an incentive, everyone howls about ‘starving children’ and ‘bringing back workhouses’.

There are basically no incentives to work and be financially responsible anymore unless you earn over £200,000.

Do you earn over £200k? If not, why don't you just give up work yourself if what you say is true?

It’s the way our country works. If you have more you end up paying a lot for everything. If you don’t the state either subsidises you or pays for everything.

The state money comes from those who pay taxes and of course corporation tax so having things means you just keep paying .

Is it fair? No. But with such a large percentage of the population (about 54%) receiving some sort of subsidy what else can we do?

Nonsence

My self funding MIL was offered a tiny room with a single bed

When she needed a wardrobe the carer showed me one. In a large bay windowed light and airy room

When I asked why she wasn’t offered it they really had no reason for me.
She’s paying why couldn’t she pick what she wanted. You’re making out they get better
They certainly do not

I visited many care homes before chosing and I was shown whatever was available not separate rooms for the havs and havnots

YABNU @5128gap it sucks. Those who’ve worked and saved hard are being let down to cover the costs of wasters.

Ive said to DH many times - be the ages of between 20 and 60 and never work (with no serious health issues) are a waste of space, loser etc. then hit the magic “pension” age and we’re supposed to feel sorry for you, despite you having contributed nothing.

We are literally drowning in welfare debt but we are supposed to blame “the rich” who don’t pay their fair share. I mean, why should they when half the country is getting £££s a month to do nothing.

the system is broken and we need it sorted now

I don’t agree with hoarding wealth to pass down, should the people who don’t have houses to sell just be euthanised??
If you have funds you pay, it would be ridiculous to expect the costs to be paid for you, just so your kids get ££

As someone with significant experience of the care system and its funding, what makes me very angry is that a person with dementia has to pay for the care they need. Dementia is caused by neurological diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and others. The diagnosis is terminal. People with other diseases, terminal or not, are cared for by the NHS. That's the bit that is unfair.

A sense of duty I suppose. A knowledge that if everyone did that, we really would be in a mess and wouldn’t have vital services. I love my DC and don’t want that for them. Or anyone else’s

Yep
and the care of strangers in the next rooms

would you give your savings to random strangers in the street
or would you give it to your children
or a charity you support

You know. Make the choice

lets face it I don’t see people standing in the street handing out hundreds and hundreds every week

So I’m guessing for most. The answer is no