Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Going into a care home? to pay or not to pay..?

86 replies

onebadbaby · 22/04/2010 21:19

Following the election debate- was just wondering what others think about this- conservatives are proposing that old folk pay 8k upfront now and then pay nothing if they do need a care home later, Labour propose wave the fees after the first 2 years, God knows what the Lib Dem policy is- they don't appear to have one.

I think I like labours policy best- it seems the fairest.

OP posts:
alypaly · 23/04/2010 01:27

its cheaper to pay £8k up front.....my mums home was £4.400 a month and she was in a home for 5 years

longfingernails · 23/04/2010 01:46

I am a Tory supporter but I don't think their social care plans here are feasible (although apparently they have been actuarially costed). Still much better than Labour's proposals though.

The obvious problem is that the insurance scheme will be most popular amongst those most likely to need care - those with more serious medical conditions at the time they retire, for example.

If people have taken out an expensive insurance premium it will make them more likely to take up residential care.

Also, it won't cover in-home care.

Nevertheless, I don't think a compulsory tax is the way forward. The Tories' proposal is the best on the table, provided you are allowed to take the £8000 premium out of the value of your house if necessary.

The Labour proposal is spin, because the numbers of people who need residential social care for more than 2 years is tiny.

I don't know what the Lib Dem policy is either, other than they want consensus on the issue. As there obviously isn't consensus on the main point - should funding be voluntary or compulsory - it seems it is stupid to keep on saying everyone should agree.

Original poster
onebadbaby · 23/04/2010 08:00

Back in the early '90s my grandma had to go into a residential care home, and as a result she had to sell her house to pa for that. I think she was in the home for 5 years, and when she dies there was not a single penny left in her estate. I think that is so unfair. Granted, it was before the days of the property boom and her house was only worth 30000K, property has risen significantly and paying for care may now be a smaller proportion of the total value. I do still think it is a very unfair system- the house itself may me a family heirloom and break many families hearts if they have to sell it.

Conservatives policy may work for some, but what if they can't afford to pay up front? and they will also stand to make a tidy earning from those that pay the 8K but never use the care. I am not sure what the costs of a care home are, but paying for the first 2 years appears fair because it will only be paid by those that require it, although of course it is still a flawed system.

OP posts:
longfingernails · 23/04/2010 08:13

Onebadbaby

That is why I think the Tory proposals are only workable if you can take the £8000 out of the value of your house when you retire - which I am sure they would be.

I think most people would think it was better to give up £8000 of your home value than the whole thing.

As for people not using it - that is the whole point of an insurance scheme. You take out insurance hoping you won't have to use it, but with peace of mind if you do. And the fact that most people won't use it keeps costs down for everyone.

As I explained above, I don't think they will make a "tidy earning" overall because I don't think they will get enough people who don't use it into the insurance pool. Can't remember the precise figures offhand, but I remember their actuarial estimates being something like a 1 in 5 takeup. I would estimate that it would be more like 1 in 3.

alypaly · 23/04/2010 08:40

onebbadbaby......my mum was initialy in a social services care home costing £1800 a month. This was for four years,then she was transferred to a private nursing hoeme at £4,400 a month. Soon made a whole in her £80k house value and all her savings. She would turn over in her grave now if she knew it had all gone her care. She always said everything was for her children.
As a relative and daughter it actually started to cost me money as i was only allowed (ONLY ALLOWED)to spend £17.20 of my mums money on her. That really really made me sooooooooo angry to be told what i could spend her money on.

thursdaynamechange · 23/04/2010 08:45

I think a lot of people in Britain can't count. If you go into a home for 5 years do people really think the state should pay for it?

Why?

The taxes we pay are to support the society we live in NOW - society cannot possibly afford for us all to live an extra 30-40 years on a pension and the last 5 of those in a care home at £2000 a week.

That is more than they will have earned/contributed in their working life.

When I have to go into a home, take it all off me (along with my other assets) and use it to pay for my care.

Ivykaty44 · 23/04/2010 08:51

So what happenes if I don't have 8k to pay up front? Does that mean I don't get to go into a care home?

What will labour do after the first 2 years?

What happens if I do have 8k and give that and then the goveremnt change and they change the rules and say I can't have care any longer without paying - will I get my 8k back?

alypaly · 23/04/2010 08:55

so when i was looking after my mum 24/7 and doing a part time job and single handedly looking afetr 2 children...the so called state would not pay me for my 24/7 care which seriously affected my life,my health,my children. i applied for careres allowance but was told i couldnt receive anything as i had a part time job. So much for a good government. Wheres the fairness there.

They are good at taking money off you and crap at giving you support when you do your absolute best to look after them yourself.I even had to financially account for things that i bought for my mum in my home to benefit her life. like changing her bedroom so that she could find the door (alzeihmers)They wouldnt even let me replace the carpet she had defaecated on ....that was down to me too.

How come its free in scotland . Think i will move there.

thursdaynamechange · 23/04/2010 08:57

All carers should be supported properly - they save the country a fortune and they are marvellous.

expatinscotland · 23/04/2010 08:58

well said, thursdaynamechange.

people just want to inherit someone's house to sell for money.

having it to sell buys you choice in care.

what's 'unfair' about that, that relatives can't get hold of money after the person dies?

that's basically legislation protecting peoples' potential inheritance. so how is that 'fair', either?

people want it all: a government to pay for everything cradle to grave (with the grave part getting farther and farther away) but not the taxes or loss on inheritance to go with it.

it doesn't work that way, folks, or, as they say in economics, 'there's no such thing as a free lunch.'

expatinscotland · 23/04/2010 08:59

taxes are not an insurance policy or a pay in, get out system.

alypaly · 23/04/2010 09:03

if i had had a carer in for all the hours i was awake each day looking after my mum, which was on average 20 hours a day for 7 months it would have cost a fortune in care...approx £15 an hour.£300 a day to care for my poor mum. i did my best for her til i collapsed and then there was noone to pick up the pieces.

then i ended up on the sick after caring for her. sick pay and two children...doesnt add up.

Original poster
onebadbaby · 23/04/2010 09:49

I think it is very unfair that those people who have worked hard, saved and bought their own home have that taken away from them if they have the misfortune to become ill during their final years and require care. If you squander all your cash and live in rented accommodation all your life then am I right in thinking the state will then pay for your care? If so, where is the fairness in that?

OP posts:
TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 23/04/2010 09:58

Thing is, I don't think living in rented accommodation is 'squandering your money', really, do you?

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 23/04/2010 10:00

onebadbaby, what would you propose we do about elderly folks who have no money, but need to go into care?

LadyBiscuit · 23/04/2010 10:04

onebadbaby - weren't you the person who felt that children with SN get an unfair amount of attention in schools compared to NT kids? Must be exhausting worrying that other people are getting more than you all the time.

Original poster
onebadbaby · 23/04/2010 10:15

Heathen- I don't think it is and didn't mean to imply that- I was trying to make the comparison between those that have saved hard and those that have chosen to spend- and I know not everyone can afford to save- am not in any way criticizing renters. I believe the government should of course provide for those that have little money or property to sell. But I also think that those that have property to sell shouldn't have to. In saying this I am thinking of my own parents who have a very modest house and savings (very working class folkes) who have scrimped and saved all their lives to provide for me and my brother and would love to leave us their house when they are gone.

I am not sure what the answer is- it is obviously a huge cost to the government and that is why I wanted to know what others thought...

OP posts:
EldonAve · 23/04/2010 10:20

Most people don't last more than 2 years in a nursing home

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 23/04/2010 10:27

Well, that's more or less the problem - we can't leave people stuck if they need care and have no money. But with the ageing population, we also can't afford to pay for everyone.

So at some point, we have to draw a line and say; if you have more than X, you have to contribute to the cost... it's a question of where X is, surely?

expatinscotland · 23/04/2010 10:31

But I also think that those that have property to sell shouldn't have to. In saying this I am thinking of my own parents who have a very modest house and savings (very working class folkes) who have scrimped and saved all their lives to provide for me and my brother and would love to leave us their house when they are gone.

MILLIONS of us 'work hard' and 'scrimp' and will never have the means to buy a house. We can work all the hours God sends and it will never happen.

But that's okay as long as you get the money from your parents' house?

That's 'fair'.

Having an asset like a house to sell to pay for care gives you choice.

Ever tried to get quality nursing care if you're indigent?

My father worked hard, but he admits he got very lucky - the economic climate in which he spent most of his adult working life (he was born in 1936) allowed him to realise a much greater profit in many ways than a man doing the same job he did now.

He makes no bones about it, the point was to provide him and his wife with a good retirement, not to enrich us with inheritance.

And I couldn't agree more! It is money I did nothing to earn and, as his POA in the case of my mother's death, my sister and I plan to ensure he gets the best his money can buy to enjoy in his life, even down to the last penny.

expatinscotland · 23/04/2010 10:31

Sorry, I missed quotation marks:
'But I also think that those that have property to sell shouldn't have to. In saying this I am thinking of my own parents who have a very modest house and savings (very working class folkes) who have scrimped and saved all their lives to provide for me and my brother and would love to leave us their house when they are gone.'

Original poster
onebadbaby · 23/04/2010 10:33

Maybe the amount each person pays could be a percentage of their total estate- for example if you add up the value of their property and savings etc and then they paid for their own care, with a cap of say 1/3 of that value- would be a huge administration task, and not sure if would work in reality- was just an idea off the top of my head??? I would just like to see a system which is fair to everyone.

OP posts:
alypaly · 23/04/2010 10:33

let me throw this one in and its something i feel strongly about. People come in from other countries and do not have a penny to their names and have contributed nothing to this country. Yet they come in,suffer ill health,use our NHS system and then get free nursing home places that we pay for. Yet our parents who have contributed everything(the war,NI yadda yadda) saved for their retirement and to enhance their families lives...have everything they have earned and saved taken off them. Why is it in this situation that those who have nothinh come off best.

Moral off this is dont ever save and sign your home over to your children before you become ill and need a home.

expatinscotland · 23/04/2010 10:34

'I believe the government should of course provide for those that have little money or property to sell. But I also think that those that have property to sell shouldn't have to.'

So, you're willing to pay higher taxes to fund this?

Because I don't know about you but we're stretched here.

And I don't see why I should have to pay more to protect your inheritance.

I certainly wouldn't expect someone else to subsidise any inheritance I get through higher taxes on themselves.

expatinscotland · 23/04/2010 10:35

'I would just like to see a system which is fair to everyone.'

And you're willing to pay higher taxes to realise that?

Because that's what it's going to take.

Life isn't fair. It's best to get over that notion.