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.

But be careful what you wish for because the flavour of some of this discussion in gthe thread is that those who cant pay for themselves really need to book in at Dignitas and save us all the cost of care.

Really? Massive leap by some then. Or, on the flip side, can be applied to the people who desperately want to leave their kids the house and go to dignitas themselves.

Perhaps it's all of us. Nobody can afford this care, either those who don't have it or those who don't want to lose everything.

I think so. It's not like you need your house anymore but you still need to pay to live somewhere. Being elderly should not mean a free ride unless you have no choice but to rely on government, same as any other age group.

Yep, well said. So millions have dementia. Now 1 in 2 of us get cancer.

Why is one classed as a social problem, the other an illness? Both cost an awful lot of money to fix.

You are only a non payer if you have no assets or your spouse is remaining in the marital home. It's no different to the split between workers and beneficiaries in other age groups. The advantage with paying is you usually have choices when choosing care.

Even if they are stately home owners of massive wealth?!

My point has nothing to do with fees, anyway. My point is that there is an assumption among people that all old people go into homes. Not true. That all old people get dementia, it's inevitable. Again not true.

There is a lot more understanding of the role of lifestyle factors in the developing of what were once thought simply 'diseases of ageing'.

Rates of dementia have in fact dropped over the last 20 years. It is just that a sizable population of many millions worldwide are entering their later years.

Why should someone else's children pay for my care so that my children can inherit my house after I've died?

That doesn't sound very fair. In New Zealand the remaining spouse is allowed to stay in the home. They are also allowed a vehicle and so much cash.
The home is funded via the government and the residents pension.

That will be because the condition means that if the person wasn't in a home they would be in hospital. It's generally cheaper for the hospital to outsource to a home rather than have to build and staff their own geriatric wing like they used to.

While only about 5% of over 75 year olds as a group, live in care homes, just over 20% of the population die in a care home. So many more go later on. Average stay is (very roughly) about 2 years.

This is true. I hope workers that go into these homes also don't have a judgemental attitude towards the ones who are state sponsored the way some people judge other beneficiaries as elderly are already vulnerable to abuse and should be safe in their own home no matter where that home is.

I totally agree with you. Someone on the dole or who has never contributed gets the same as someone who has worked damn hard and paid their way. Totally not fair and immorally wrong. Ignore all the left wing comments on your post, you are right in what you're saying.

That sounds terrible. Maybe that home needs to be reported as it sounds like they are over riding residents rights here.

Some people have never "contributed" as they are disabled, or look after someone disabled.
And some people who end up in care and paying for it will have not worked either, because they inherited a house. Having money/house =/= mean you worked hard.
There is a vast gulf between the two types of people you are on about.

So the OP is being unreasonable, but it's ok for you and your parents to gift money to your offspring in order that you don't have to spend it all on care fees?

What's the difference?

My mum was in home for 5 years after a massive stroke. She wasn't meant to live past the first few months. My dad bought a mobility vehicle and would bring her home or take her out somewhere everyday. She was funded but didn't even have dinner there as we cooked for her at lunchtime.
When my dad eventually had to go into a home he only lasted about 6 weeks. He should have gone earlier but had this obsession with leaving his children an inheritance. We would have preferred he went in earlier as the home we chose was really nice and it was so lovely being able to visit him without having to sort out home maintenance etc every visit but he was stubborn.

I think the US have a scheme like this. Not sure if it's compulsory. They do have a large population though.

Just like childcare centres. It's like the MCDonalds model where you are buying and investing in real estate which is the real value in these homes but you get a good stream of government funding too. Governments are having a hard look at the way units are resold in some of these villages but it's still good money for investors.

Here in New Zealand it is $200,000 and has been for years.

Sounds like a plan, but in reality it can be hard to do. And what if you have a need that isn't funded by the government later.
So long as you work hard spend your money as you want, after all, whatever the government isn't getting from you at the end they will get along the way with sales taxes so fair enogh.

I actually think that's a glorified view of the past. Most people generations ago didn't live as long as now, families could afford to have someone at home and elderly that had conditions such as dementia and shellshick from the wars were quite often put in asylum.

Probably some sort of bulk funding as the government would be the homes biggest client. Also many families still pay a top up fee on top of what the government pays. As well as taking most of the residents pension.

What about those elderly people who don’t have children?

Indeed! By 2030, 2 million ppl over 65 will not have children . Yet another thing governments have failed to consider about health and social care - demographics of society have shifted hugely

What if the kids don't earn enough to fund, too?

That person needs to be reported. They have posted vile things on other threads. An obvious trol..