Avoiding Care Home Costs

SammiD

But what Im trying to say is why should the basic minimum be such a poor standard? And flipping it around, why is someone who worked hard all their life and has savings entitled to an excellent level of care but someone who has (for example) been unable to work for whatever reason so has no savings has to put up with a very poor level of care?
Its not fair whichever way you look at it as far as I'm concerned.
But then thats an arguement that could go on and on, why should someone paying for any form of medical treatment get a higher level of treatment than someone getting the same procedure on the NHS? Schools and education the same I guess. Its a never ending cycle that, unfortunately, we are way to far into to be able to get out (as already said by people in this post re having to put so much money into things to get them sorted etc etc )

onlyroz

SammiD wrote: »

Its not fair whichever way you look at it as far as I'm concerned.

The only way to have a completely "fair" system, where everybody gets the same excellent level of education/healthcare/nursing care, is to bump up taxes to eye-watering levels. If people are unwilling to do this then the next best solution must be for people to pay out of their own pocket just for the education/healthcare/nursing care that they require - and a basic level provided for those that can't afford the above.

My god, I'm starting to sound like a capitalist...

euronorris

Honestly, whilst the current systems could be improved upon, I don't think it's possible to ever make it 100% fair.

There will always be people who receive more back from the state than they put in and vice versa. Mostly through no fault of their own (although, there will also always be scroungers out there).

lynzpower

When mum moves into residential care she isnt just paying for the personal care ( washing, dressing, feeding) she is also paying for:
Rent
Utility costs
Food
Laundry
A cleaner
Maintenance of the property and landscaping of the gardens

These are all costs that we all have to pay in some way or another and although she might not be paying for all of the above, she will be paying for some of these anyway!!

MOving into a residential care setting is no different in many ways from anyone moving house- moving to somewhere that will better meet your needs than your current home.

If she wants control over it, she needs to go private.

Also bear in mind in non private homes, people can and DO get moved against their wishes ( well in my experience)

I cant see why the taxpayer should pay for this either. Given her age and the fact she has 4 children I think it is probably arguable that she has "paid in all her life" , indeed the HPI that she will have undoubtedly benefited from is simply "free money"

So why not spend it on taking care of yourself for you to make those choices you are most happy with?
this sense of entitlement to benefits or state support seems somewhat backhanded to me, because choices are not so widespread if the state decides for you.

woody01

orchardjim wrote: »

My 86 year old mother is growing increasingly worried about the prospects of going into care and having her house sold to pay for care home costs. Several years ago, following the death of my father and her husband, she redrafted her will leaving the house to be shared between her 4 children. As she grows increasingly frail she is now becoming anxious that a life of hard work will leave nothing behind for her children. I understand that simply transferring the property to them will fall foul of the 'Care in the Coommunity Act' and could result in the property being used to fund care anyway. Are there any other options worth considering?

This may sound cruel, and i am sorry but......

If you mother has a house which could fund her care then that's what she should do.

It is more unfair to burden the taxpayer with her care costs whilst the 4 of you walk of into the sunset with a 25% of a house and assets.

It boils down to the fact that you would rather i paid for your mother to live at a care home than pay for it yourself.
Do you think that's OK?

Why should someone who has saved all their lives etc paid for their house, put away for their children etc be expected to pay when someone who has been on benefits etc doesn't have to?

So by your logic then, why should some poor sod, that may have earnt minimum wage all their lives, so could not afford to save anything, be expected to pay for the care of a complete stranger when they have the finances to do it themselves?

I'm paying over £1200per month tax at the moment, and i don't want it going towards someones care that can easily pay for it themselves, whilst the persons kids live of the proceeds.

katsclaws

Quite a high percentage of people in care homes have dementia which can be really hard to manage. Many husbands and wives (& sons/daughters) have struggled for years to look after someone with dementia and putting their loved one in a home is one of the hardest decisions to make. The OP doesn't say his mother has dementia but saying that one of the four children could look after their mother is too simplistic without knowing the facts. Many people with dementia also have medical needs but it is very difficult to get continuing healthcare (CHC) ie free care as dementia is not classified as a medical condition. Even those who have savings below the threshold (about £22,000) or do not have a property to sell have their state pension taken towards care fees and are left with about £20.00 pocket money.

katsclaws

rpc

woody01 wrote: »

So by your logic then, why should some poor sod, that may have earnt minimum wage all their lives, so could not afford to save anything, be expected to pay for the care of a complete stranger when they have the finances to do it themselves?

Conversely, why should someone who has earned the same as the OP's parents but spent it all rather than saved get their care paid for by the taxpayer? I have no issue with people who could never have afforded it, like your example, getting free care. But charging the savers while giving the spenders a free ride isn't right either.

Care that is medically required is, as I understand it, always free. So what remains is "voluntary" care. If it's voluntary then perhaps we should either charge everybody or charge nobody.

I'm not sure there is an obviously easy answer to the care home problem. I doubt we'll ever see it, but I'd like to see a system that provides a very basic (but satisfactory) level of free care for everyone and lets those that can afford it pay for better care. It's then the choice of the individual whether to spend their savings or pass them on. I don't see care homes as all that different to a number of NHS services so why not make them free at the point of use too?

katsclaws

Sadly rpc, care that is medically required is not always free as in the case of dementia. The only people with dementia who get free care are those who are under a Section 2 or a Section 3.

katsclaws

Morgan_Ree

katsclaws wrote: »

Sadly rpc, care that is medically required is not always free as in the case of dementia. The only people with dementia who get free care are those who are under a Section 2 or a Section 3.

katsclaws

But thats completely different and totally irrelevant!
Those on a sect 2 or 3 only receive care because they've been sectioned and have no choice in the matter!

As for no free care for dementia sufferers that is not true at all
CPN's are intitally involved, who if they see fit can do a financial statement type thing which is forwaded to Social Services who then decide if the person is entitled to free care. Be it home carers, or permanent respite

katsclaws

Hello Morgan_ree, I obviously did not put that very well. I was talking about those with dementia who are self funding getting free care. Of course those who have no savings and need to go into a care home for dementia get free care. But Social Services will delay as long as possible to put someone into a care home when they have dementia if they are not self funding. This puts a huge strain on carers who are often elderly themselves. CHC is very difficult to get for anyone with dementia but care funded by social services is provided to those with dementia who are not self funding.

katsclaws