Signing house over to children before care

John_Pierpoint

The attitude seems to vary by local authority - my wife's mother's authority seemed to take the attitude that 24/7 dementia care was not a proof of disablement.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/Taxreliefandreductions/DG_064481

vandervart

I dont agree with a lot of the 'put up and shut-up' replies on this forum about the ethics of universal health care for the elderly or sick.. Firstly I believe in and would hope our NHS retains forever the principles that Aneurin Beavan first dreamt of.. namely if you are Unemployed, Poor , Sick,Vulnerable or Elderly then the Tax and NI contributions from the more fortunate masses (and those contributions you have made yourself in your working lifetime) will look after you..BECAUSE tomorrow it could be you in that position.... Nowhere in that set of profound principles does it say, that the state would in addition to our tax and NI contributions bleed the vulnerable dry if they fall ill (thats what frailty,alzheimers etc is after all) in their later years... ... Its almost the worst of Communism and Capitalism combined and one step away from reintroducing the Workhouse.. So I will be searching hard to find a legal way of signing my house over to my children AND until then I am more than happy for my taxes to be spent on those less fortunate people who need the NHS..

margaretclare

If you really want to return to the time of Aneurin Bevan, particularly in the case of older people, you must also recall that, if an older person could no longer live at home in those days, there were things called 'geriatric hospitals'. These were mainly the old workhouse infirmaries repainted magnolia instead of dark green. In general, the people who ended their days in those hospitals were people who had no other resources, those whose care would be paid for nowadays by the local authority. Few people owned their own homes then. Those who did were the better-off end of the population and I think they would probably still have had live-in servants who could have given the necessary 'care'.

Times have changed a bit!

Errata

It's pointless comparing care for the elderly in the late 1940's to that of today. Life expectancy was far less then and people needed care for a significantly shorter period of time before they died.
New wine doesn't fit into old bottles.

margaretclare

Errata wrote: »

It's pointless comparing care for the elderly in the late 1940's to that of today. Life expectancy was far less then and people needed care for a significantly shorter period of time before they died.
New wine doesn't fit into old bottles.

This was actually the point I was trying to make in response to the previous poster, who thought that everything should stay as it was in the time of Aneurin Bevan. Bevan, in fact, was only working to the principles of the Beveridge Report 1942.