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.

Im not great at maths but those figures sound very low, I cant see any insurance company setting premiums that reasonably.

Plus care is about 2k a week

Never once did I cite my children as the reason that I have a ‘problem’?

Given that what I actually said was “the reason I had financial issues was my husband leaving at the same time as rents spiked” - it’s interesting to know how you came to the conclusion I blamed my children.

And agreeing with me wouldn’t be calling my children albatrosses, would it.

I know you think you’re superior to me becuase you have children who were born into a family that owned a house & that’s wonderful for you, I hope it keeps you warm and fuzzy at night. Meanwhile, I’m perfectly happy working and renting and living in the beautiful part of the world that I do with my four beautiful children. Owning a house has never been a passion or interest of mine and that’s fine too. Doesn’t make me irresponsible or less worthy than you.

Given that this argument was initially just your distaste for my assertion that working hard isn’t only for people that have assets, you’ve not done or said anything to disprove that. At best you’ve put across the view that someone could have assets if they were more like you than me - and even if you were right, that still doesn’t change the fact that I do indeed work hard and I don’t have any assets. So I remain convinced of my initial statement.

If you look at income protection insurance, for example that pays out on average 70% of somebody’s wages
That costs about 10% of somebody’s income

Over their lifetime though? The poster seems to be saying its 2500 or so over their lifetime, or have I read it wrong?

Even if it was £2000/ week we still end up at £10 a month

recent national averages I’ve just checked are £1300

so that’s £7/month

Those that are not paying for it themselves doesn't mean it costs nothing, all of their pension goes towards it and then the rest of us make up the difference for it through tax. Having your own money to pay for care means you have choice in which care home you want. If you've never looked round different care homes you won't know that not all facilities are equal or as comfortable. Whereas those that are funded have very little choice, if any. I wouldn't want to be in a basic care facility that the social pay for.

Agree that home care can be really poor. Many are inmigrants with poor English so there is a communication barrier. My DH used to have a visit from council carer to provide lunch. Lucky if they stayed till he ate it despite him being a choking risk. There were many occasions where they didn’t come till 3pm. He would have had tea & toast at 8 before I went to work.
My neighbour had a private care company ( council funded) for her profoundly disabled adult son. They routinely didn’t send anyone if they were short staffed as neighbour was in the home. Son needed 2 people but only ever got one so neighbour always had to assist with hoisting etc. So when no-one came she was left alone to care for him. She was over 60 too.
Problem is few people go into care as a career choice. They do it as they have limited options and often couldn't care less. I could keep on with many examples.

People who chose to rent work their arses off too.

Well I wouldnt say no to that, and in fact would probably just pay the whole thing up front.

In fact are there any insurances that one can take out for this now?

But apparently people don’t have £50 a month to save so
You’re going to end up again with contributors and non-contributors
And one subsidising the other

That is correct
It’s low because so few people actually go into care and only for an average of 2years
Basically 33 people pay for let’s say 40years one in care for 2years

There's not a massive uptake so premiums are low

Insurance companies meanwhile make money by investing

It’s £7/month
and like other countries would be compulsory

There are Annuities that cover care costs

Interestingly, Ive just done a comparison quote for income protection (Ive never had income protection)

To protect the maximum payout of 2.5k per month income (this is less than my income), to start after 60 days, its £108 per month as the premium, that is incredibly expensive

And the illness cover wouldnt cover any of my MH conditions, which is the most likely reason that I would get ill, no back issues, again the second most likely reason for me getting ill and then any pre existing condition that Ive sought health care for within the previous 24 months, so thats like everything I suffer from then.

Not worth the paper its written on and incredibly expensive. Im not likely to be sacked so the only reason I wouldnt be able to work is those illnesses.

Shall I tell Rachel 🧐

We had income protection for me when dh had a brain haemorrhage and found it really expensive
No idea if that was to do with the nature of my profession

When Im googling that, they seem to be for people over 80

All rather crap
Theres so little available at the moment because of our current system and most are only available for those in imminent need of care.
But they can be beneficial if you live longer than expected

Really Rachel needs to push for more options or a compulsory system for all

We really are lagging behind many other countries on this

I think its perfectly reasonable to sell your house to pay your care home fees. It's just like moving at any other period of your life, you sell one property and that money pays for your next home. It's madness to me to think the state (i.e. all of us through increased taxes) should have to pay to preserve assets and inheritances. When you need 24 hour nursing care more than you need an empty 3-bed semi, you sell your assets to pay for your care.

And you can’t see why it’s sticks in the craw that those who haven’t bothered their arse to get on the property ladder get the same care?

And yeah yeah I know, not their fault etc. Whatever. All those people who were too cool to do more than fanny around at school and bully and disrupt the education of others, who thought it was so clever to come away with nothing, now have no earning power and we’re all supposed to sympathise and pay for them.

But I don’t think many get 24 hour nursing care do they? Most need a care home not trained nurses, unless they have dressings etc to attend to. What irks some is the person in the next room is paying nothing for the same care while you’re paying 2k a week!

How does that work if homes are private businesses that need paid? Surely they can’t wait till residents have died to be paid? That could be years away? Or am I misunderstanding?

I thought the council paid

Which begs another question, if you are a self funder and pay 2k a week. You're racking up 2k a week but the house will be sold when you're dead under the DPA

But your house is worth 100k and you're still in care after 2 years so from that time onward, the sale of the house wont contribute to any more care

Does the care home then start charging the council less money as now you're state funded?

That's a weak argument. Most self funders will run out of funds pretty quickly. Most self funders don't have that much choice about which care home, especially if you have to go in at short notice.

Also run out of money in a expensive all bells and whistles home and you are turfed out at that point.

I had an aunt who went into a home for a while aged 90, it wasn't that long before she died but it could have been longer.

My cousin, her daughter, let the house. It was a standard three bed terrace with two rooms downstairs and garden back and front. Off street parking. Three nurses occupied it and that paid the fees.

Now my cousin, going on 91, is in a care home, very sad but for about eighteen months she was wandering around at night and having rows with people. Her three children did what they could but they don't live on the doorstep; they tried hiring carers for a while.

Her house is now let to pay the fees. It doesn't have to be sold.