how can you avoid house u own paying for nursing home fees

marklv

dunstonh wrote: »

That is still the case now. Only a small minority end up going into care homes or require local authority care.

It's a rapidly growing minority. Take the two biggest killers: heart disease and cancer. 100 years ago having heart failure meant almost certain death in a few weeks - there was nothing the doctors could do. Now, there are various cocktails of drugs that GPs can prescribe to keep the disease 'under control' for years. Note: not a cure, but 'under control', which means the patient is still dying, only more slowly. And it's pretty much the same scenario for many types of cancer. Death used to be rapid, but now it's a long, drawn out and humiliating process.
And the fact that more and more people are surviving into their 90s (almost unheard of 100 years ago) means that we also have the problems of senile dementia, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's to deal with. These illnesses require a huge amount of care for the patient, because they make him/her totally incapacitated.

All this and the government still refuses to legalise voluntary euthanasia!

MissMoneypenny

Torby wrote: »

Blimey....what happens when they sell your house and you only get £159,000 for it and you live for another 10 yrs....do they "boot" you out?

To a state run home...yes, if they don't take state paid for residents. Although in the home my mother is in, if they have been there for a few years, they may keep them on at state paid for payments.

In the other home we looked at, they would then lose their own room and have to share with another state paid for, resident.

uberalles

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

:eek: £3.5k a month? £42000 a year?? That is not usual, surely????

Missus volunteers once a week in a charity funded home but where guests who can pay have to pay.
£650 per week is the rate.

marklv

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

:eek: £3.5k a month? £42000 a year?? That is not usual, surely????

My father in law's 84 year old aunt had to go into a private nursing home in 2003 following a series of strokes, which left her incapacitated and unable to speak or move around properly. The cost (in 2003) was £500 a week, of which the state paid the first £120 a week, leaving a balance of £380 a week to be met by her estate. Mercifully she passed away after four months, but £6,500 was squandered on this process. Surely she could have been kept in hospital for that time? But no.

I think £42k a year is a little on the high side for a private home, but it doesn't surprise me.

MissMoneypenny

marklv wrote: »

Presumably that's when the means testing kicks in. Moreover it is very unlikely for a home resident to live that long - the average is two years. The lady concerned seems very ill, so I doubt that she would have a life expectancy greater than that.

She isn't at deaths door. She got thrown out of one home, because of her bad behaviour!:eek: She has always been a "character".

She does need someone with her full time and with the nursing she is getting, we expect her to live many more years.

MissMoneypenny

Torby wrote: »

don't like to say it but if they only live 2 years....where does the balance of the estate go then?

To whomever they have left it to in their will.

marklv

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

She isn't at deaths door. She got thrown out of one home, because of her bad behaviour!:eek: She has always been a "character".

She does need someone with her full time and with the nursing she is getting, we expect her to live many more years.

Not sure what you mean by 'bad behaviour'. :rolleyes:

As an alternative, what about sheltered accommodation? This would be much cheaper. Or does she need constant nursing? If not, then a visiting nurse would suffice, I would have thought.

slopemaster

marklv wrote: »

Interesting. Well, if you lived in France, inheritance is a law given right. You cannot disinherit your progeny there, whether you like it or not.

Yes, but in France, elderly parents have to be looked after by their children, this is also a law-given right

MissMoneypenny

marklv wrote: »

As an alternative, what about sheltered accommodation? This would be much cheaper. Or does she need constant nursing? If not, then a visiting nurse would suffice, I would have thought.

She needs constant care and some nursing. We don't care about "cheaper" as we don't want her to get by on the bare minimum of care, as that might lead to further problems for her and an accident might even end her life.

She has the money in her house to fund her constant care when she needs it most and none of her children will be trying to take that money away from her.

margaretclare

marklv wrote: »

My point is that your nursing home needs, certainly as far as care is concerned, should be taken care of by the state. Now, I can understand that accommodation needs cannot realistically be catered for by the state, but the medical and nursing care should be. Otherwise, what do you pay tax for?

I agree with this. In recent months DH has had some very long-drawn-out and expensive treatment, and he's still not totally out of the woods. We're grateful that we did not have to pay for what was done for him - we could not possibly have afforded it, house or no house.

In the 19th century care was not an issue, because only a tiny proportion of the population lived long enough to need it.

I am not really going as far back as the 19th century - what I wrote was from memories of things that happened as recently as the 20th century.