Putting home into family trust to avoid nursing home fees

Errata

Euthanasia has nothing to do with doctors who murder patients for gain like Bodkin Adams, or for thrills like Shipman.

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

The logical development of this thread is that the country seriously needs to debate the laws in uncivilised Netherlands, Oregon, Switzerland..........as they relate to active/passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia

Here in the UK, we have our famous "humbug and fudge consumed by medics" solution :- "We need some signatures.........." "Hang on one of these is a Do not Resuscitate form".
Some how the name Bodkin-Adams and his "she was dying anyway" quote still resonates in my brain from primary school age.

Mojisola

jennifernil wrote: »

What I find unfair is that there seems to be 2 different prices in care homes where there are both council funded and self funding residents.

As far as I can make out, the council says what they will pay, and the home has to accept that. They then charge the self funding residents more to make up the shortfall.

That doesn't happen in our area. The council sets its limit for basic care and there is one home in each town which takes people at that rate. All the other homes charge more and so only have self-funding people in them or people whose families are paying top-ups.

There are a few people in the other homes who have greater needs and who receive funding at a higher rate.

John_Pierpoint

Wash you mouth out, Bodkin-Adams was found not guilty.

What he famously established was "duality of purpose" (ie I pump you full of military grade heroin and you die quicker, however my purpose was to alleviate your suffering.)

It is similar to the quandry about how to "manage" dementia.
http://www.contenteddementiatrust.org/

John_Pierpoint

jennifernil wrote: »

What I find unfair is that there seems to be 2 different prices in care homes where there are both council funded and self funding residents.

As far as I can make out, the council says what they will pay, and the home has to accept that. They then charge the self funding residents more to make up the shortfall.

I don't have a problem with paying my taxes, or potentially having to pay for my own care, but why should I have to pay extra to subsidise others. This should be spread over all taxpayers.

That was my experience SW of London, but it was 10 years ago.

You and Yours on Radio 4 was given over to the costs of care of the vulnerable - following last night's Panorama programme.

One bloke had interviewed care home managers and chosen the one who defined his home's objective as "making people happy".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02x7mx2

webtalk

Doesn' not using one's property to pay for one's care turn one into a 'scrounger' of the worst kind?

Terrible label - scrounger

margaretclare

webtalk wrote: »

Doesn't not using one's property to pay for one's care turn one into a 'scrounger' of the worst kind?

Terrible label - scrounger

I don't think they look at it like that. They look at it from the perspective of having worked and paid taxes all their adult lives and think they've paid for it already, paid in advance, if you like.

antrobus

Errata wrote: »

Euthanasia has nothing to do with doctors who murder patients for gain like Bodkin Adams, or for thrills like Shipman.

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Wash you mouth out, Bodkin-Adams was found not guilty..

Indeed he was. It's probably just as well that John Bodkins Adams is dead, otherwise he'd be collecting a cheque from you as he did from the Daily Mail.

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

...What he famously established was "duality of purpose" (ie I pump you full of military grade heroin and you die quicker, however my purpose was to alleviate your suffering.)..

I believe that Adams admitted to 'easing the passing' of his patients, which would probably be regarded as a no-no these days, but no less a personage than George VI was once finished off by a speedball, so things were different in the past.

SandraScarlett

antrobus wrote: »

Indeed he was. It's probably just as well that John Bodkins Adams is dead, otherwise he'd be collecting a cheque from you as he did from the Daily Mail.



I believe that Adams admitted to 'easing the passing' of his patients, which would probably be regarded as a no-no these days, but no less a personage than George VI was once finished off by a speedball, so things were different in the past.

My Grandfather used to talk to me about "my friend, The King", and I honestly believed that they were great buddies. It transpired that he was once at a racetrack at the same time as George VI's father, King George V, who doffed his topper to the crowd, so that was enough for my Grandpa to claim royal connections!

King George V was given the speedball to hasten his death, and whenever he, or Queen Mary, were mentioned in the papers, Grandpa would say "oh there's a piece written here about my friends, the royals".

xx

seven-day-weekend

mumps wrote: »

I couldn't agree more, bit harder for me with 4 but so far they have had a chunk of our hard earned cash for university but I hope we can help with houses etc when the time comes. Maybe they will need less help if qualifications gets them good jobs but who knows. By the way how is the buy to let project going? I haven't been on much since my youngest was in hospital so haven't heard if you got the mortgage?

We decided against the idea. Too much hassle.

Savvy_Sue

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

We decided against the idea. Too much hassle.

Interesting you should say that: we had the idea suggested to us too, but I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that I can't face the hassle either ...