Over 55's don't want to pay for their own care

puddy

so under continuing care is there any care home care that is met, or is it all or nothing?

PasturesNew

puddy wrote: »

so under continuing care is there any care home care that is met, or is it all or nothing?

Never actually got to use the offer.... it was all over so quick they didn't even get to be booked in.

The choice was home or in a home.... and we'd already chosen 'in a home' as they were the world's worst patient and it'd have been impossible, especially with the newly discovered other person's needs; the one left behind couldn't do a thing. As a couple they could bumble along and create a life based on only doing what they could with the means available .... alone, one couldn't do a thing.

OptionARMAGEDDON

They should have a choice. Either pay up, or get sent to the glue factory. They could always get a free ticket to visit the swiss courtesy of the state.

the_flying_pig

mortgage interest support is a bit of a non-issue.

more pertinent is the fact that anyone who's had a mediocre job, had a couple of kids go through state school & then FE/HE, spent a few weeks in hospital[maybe including an operation or two], drawn the state pension for quite a lot of years, maybe spent a few years drawing HB or in a council house, and taken a few trains and buses, and obviously driven on a few roads & whatnot, probably hasn't paid very much at all, if anything, in taxes in net terms, even before care home fees kick in. so the feeling of sacred entitlement to housing wealth even when care home fees kick in [current property values being, all agree, reflecting government cockups {depending on your viewpoint weak monetary policy & financial regulation or simply not enough building}] is, i find, rather odd and unpleasant.

Loughton_Monkey

I become increasingly irritated by this debate. [I become irritated about most debates as it happens, but complete misery is in my genes].

First of all, the OP quotes an "Aviva" article. Well they would say that wouldn't they, because they are trying to sell their products. But the key thing in this whole debate is the way that 90% (it seems to me) of the population equates "Having to go into care" = "forced to sell the home".

Now I know of no such thing, directly. I think of it as "Having to go into care" = "forced to pay for that care".

Those who fail to see the significant difference should be shot. Now I agree there is a debate about (a) why doesn't the so-called 'Health Service' cover the cost, and (b) is the means tested limit too strict, or should there be caps? So let that debate continue. Nothing wrong with that.

Then there is an entirely seperate debate. This is about those who 'got old' and retired with very little money to their name despite having been able to buy a house. As we all know, if there is a spouse still living in the house, it is effectively ignored for means testing. So we are talking about a 'last survivor'. And he or she is forced to pay for ongoing care if 'net worth' is around £23K+. Now why is it so much of a black/white issue as to whether that wealth is in cash, bonds, gold, or a house? This is purely a matter of personal choice. Some saved their money and have loads of NS&I bonds. Some might have their wealth under the mattress. Others put their wealth into buying a house. So what's the difference? If you run out of cash, you have to "realise" your assets - whether it be in index-linked bonds or in property - to pay for care. End of....

I'm sure there are many people out there - the lovely Aunt Doris - who has sadly had to put Uncle Albert into a home, and she is now selling his Savings Certificates left right and centre to pay for his care. Surely she deserves as much sympathy as Old Fred who used to live next door? Old Fred didn't bother saving, and his kids can't be a4sed to pay for his care out of their own money, and so they have had to sell his house to pay for it.

nearlynew

CLAPTON wrote: »

so if you ask students whether uni should be free and grants generous you will probably find most in favour
if you ask mortgage payers whether interest ought to be tax deductable you will probably find most agree
if you ask people with children whether there ought to be more support for families with children then most will agree
if you ask pensioners whether pensions should be more generous you will find most agree
if you ask the Scots whether they should receive more money per head that the English then you will find most will agree

is there a common thread anywhere here?

Reminds me of this classic ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgyKpkLpccE

StevieJ

TruckerT wrote: »

That's probably why private insurers are so slow to get excited about the business opportunity...

I am about to make an Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment (aka a Living Will)

TruckerT

I wonder what you will be thinking when it comes down to it and Mr Reaper is knocking on the door :eek:

PasturesNew

If you're in care and the last one, you can't have the house sitting there rotting ....

I've done some sums for my situation and the alternative is for them to stay in their unsuitable home (or spend £20k bringing it up to modern standards) and having streams of random strangers dropping in to do this, that and the other all day... as well as additional costs each time they have a new need (eg today would have cost about £40 for random strangers to carry out the unexpected tasks that needed fulfiling today). It's much nicer (and actually cheaper) for many to go to a home and pay for that, safe/secure that all needs are met and worries removed, than to sit home entirely alone for hours/days/weeks while troops of random strangers come and go willy nilly -and- they get friends on tap rather than being completely alone.

If your house is worth £100k then the sums won't add up ... but if you're one of that London lot you might never have to touch the capital - especially during years when interest rates are more than peanuts.

As a family, we're quite happy to dip into our pockets to make up the difference if the one needing the home runs out of money ... heck I'd even be prepared to get a job!

I think the one tiny thing that IS annoying though is that you need income (pensions/savings interest) to pay for a home, yet you're taxed on that, even though you're handing it all over for care. Maybe a tweak would be in order that you don't pay tax on income up to the current state funding level if you're self-funded.

TruckerT

StevieJ wrote: »

I wonder what you will be thinking when it comes down to it and Mr Reaper is knocking on the door :eek:

Nobody will ever know... and not many will care!

TruckerT

the_flying_pig

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

...Then there is an entirely seperate debate. This is about those who 'got old' and retired with very little money to their name despite having been able to buy a house. As we all know, if there is a spouse still living in the house, it is effectively ignored for means testing. So we are talking about a 'last survivor'. And he or she is forced to pay for ongoing care if 'net worth' is around £23K+. Now why is it so much of a black/white issue as to whether that wealth is in cash, bonds, gold, or a house? This is purely a matter of personal choice. Some saved their money and have loads of NS&I bonds. Some might have their wealth under the mattress. Others put their wealth into buying a house. So what's the difference? If you run out of cash, you have to "realise" your assets - whether it be in index-linked bonds or in property - to pay for care. End of...

indeed. otherwise you're just incentivising coffin dodgers to transfer all cash and all assets into pwoperdee, where it couldn't be touched.