'Should you be forced to sell your home to pay for long term care?' poll

Torry_Quine

2sides2everystory wrote: »

This is purely a distribution of wealth question.


Given the experience in the UK of the last three generations (say) we have (1) the "Never had it so goods" who are those who may need the care now because they have lived far longer than they originally expected, then we have (2) their offspring - the highly educated baby boomers, some of whom have used their education for furthering greed and are powering the massive redistributions of wealth into the hands of the few as we speak, and then (3) there are the offspring of baby-boomers - those who now find they cannot get a job or a house and are totally disillusioned because their parents taught them how it was supposed to work i.e. they would do better than their parents. It wasn't a lie, it was just a terrible misunderstanding of what real greed (which no-one in this thread has yet touched upon) does to normal families in what appear to be stable "western" developed economies like ours but which have been systematically undermined by massively corrupted corporate motive and boundless immorality starting at the top and inculcated to all that value their jobs with corporates.

The never had it so goods were also largely those who endured World War 2.

I believe we became a nation of good people after we rebuilt our economy after WW2.

I must remember to tell my elderly relatives this as I'm sure they are unaware that things were so good for them!! :mad: It's a very sweeping statement and not true in many instances.

As the next generation I don't recognise the description either. I certainly don't have wealth by any recognised description.

rinabean wrote: »

Of course people shouldn't have to sell their homes. But once you're no longer living in it, it's no longer your home. It's a house - an inheritance. The question is really "should I not get my inheritance just because granny had the audacity to live beyond her useful years?" and the answer is obviously no, you shouldn't.

Yes at face value you could say once the elderly person no longer lives there it is just a house again. However that takes no account of the emotional energy that has been put into building a home that isn't easily ignored or diminished by circumstance.

law442

This is a tricky one. I worked for my local council social services for the elderly - some homes charge extortionate fees in my area. The council set a rate they will pay per room per week so they only have a certain number of homes who are willing to accept council rates. Or more expensive homes may take them if the family are willing to pay a top-up. Of course, as well as council funded residents, there are people in those same homes that are full fee paying residents.

My nan is in a care home and it grates with me, and even more with her, that my grandad (before he died) always provided, worked hard, saved hard, and any inheritance for their 4 boys is dwindling away rapidly (the home is the best part of £1000 a week and she has been there for 5 years).

I have to say it seems incredibly unfair that if you work hard and save hard, you have to pay the lot, yet if you don't bother and enjoy lovely holidays and spend, spend, spend - the state will provide the same care for you free of charge.

Equally I'm well aware we're all living longer and the state cannot pay for everyone - but surely there needs to be some system that rewards rather than penalises those who've made the effort...??

Interesting topic.......

2sides2everystory

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I must remember to tell my elderly relatives this as I'm sure they are unaware that things were so good for them!! :mad: It's a very sweeping statement and not true in many instances.

I am sure your elderly relatives will remember who said it, though Torry ... it was not meant to be a description of who holds wealth, merely an ironic way of identifying the generation who were the working class at the time the PM, Harold MacMillan, described them that way ... the fact is that many in that generation whilst still living frugal lives, have found themselves in retirement far better off than their grandchildren who are struggling to fly the nest into their thirties.

As the next generation I don't recognise the description either. I certainly don't have wealth by any recognised description.

It's not about you Torry (or me) - it was just a broad description of the baby-boomer generation from whom the captains of industry over the past decade have been drawn. There's some bloody greedy barstewards in there, who no doubt were brought up as innocent choirboys, but boy did some of those get the money bug :mad: What gets me is that many of them go to Church on Sundays either kidding themselves that they do God's work during the week or more likely they just see it as some essential networking That same age group also contains far more like you or like me and we ain't wealthy and are rapidly getting poorer via disappearing pensions, the shrinking pound in our pocket, and having to prop up our offspring for as long as it takes them to grow their own grey hair in some cases

Torry_Quine

2sides2everystory wrote: »

I am sure your elderly relatives will remember who said it, though Torry ... it was not meant to be a description of who holds wealth, merely an ironic way of identifying the generation of working class at the time the PM (MacMillan) described them that way ... the fact is that many in that generation whilst still living frugal lives, have found themselves in retirement far better off than their grandchildren who are struggling to fly the nest into their thirties.

It's not about you Torry (or me) - it's just a broad description of the baby-boomer generation from whom the captains of industry over the past decade have been drawn. There's some bloody greedy barstewards in there, who no doubt were brought up as innocent choirboys, but boy did they get the money bug :mad: That same group also contains far more like you or like me and we ain't wealthy and are rapidly getting poorer via disappearing pensions, the shrinking pound in our pocket, and having to prop up our offspring for as long as it takes them to grow their own grey hair in some cases

Thanks for the clarification, I just get rather annoyed when comments seem to say that pensioners are all well off, far from it. Mine don't have grandchildren to compare but I doubt they'd be better off.

I know what you mean here. My money such that it is disappears very quickly but don't aks me where it goes!

[Deleted User]

If someone needs to go into care for SOCIAL reasons then yes, of course they should pay if they are deemed to have assets andcan afford it.

If someone needs to go into care for HEALTH reasons, the LAW - as determined in Coughlan - says the NHS have to pay.

I am surprised such a blinkered poll as this as been posted on the site without determining the difference between the 2 scenarios above,

The whole issue of paying for care is highly complex but can be split as above - I recently tried to get MSE to pick up this important topic and try and highlight the ongoing scandal of sick people losing their homes in paying for care that the NHS should be funding.

I pm'd MSE and the shoret version of the short reply was no - it;s not something we can do. If there has been a change of heart then please - at least do some homework first instead of posting a poll as though it were a simple black and white issue.

meher

And I find it offensive and heartbreaking that the elderly are removed from their homes and put in care homes; I cannot help it, sorry - I'm willing to blame the state for not channelling resources into care for elderly in their own homes if rephrasing helps but if we cannot make an effort and sacrifice a little to make sure our parents/grandparents/elderly others are not removed from their own homes, then that does say something about family value/lessness that I'm unfamiliar with and when it is unfamiliar, he family dynamics is dysfunctional by definition, imo. If I'm perfectly honest, I could care very little if tax payer is affected or not, I couldn't care if it means we end up taking private insurance; I'd pitch a tent and protest against the elderly removed from their homes for care if I ever witness it.

Torry_Quine

Deleted_User wrote: »

If someone needs to go into care for SOCIAL reasons then yes, of course they should pay if they are deemed to have assets andcan afford it.

If someone needs to go into care for HEALTH reasons, the LAW - as determined in Coughlan - says the NHS have to pay.

I am surprised such a blinkered poll as this as been posted on the site without determining the difference between the 2 scenarios above,

The whole issue of paying for care is highly complex but can be split as above - I recently tried to get MSE to pick up this important topic and try and highlight the ongoing scandal of sick people losing their homes in paying for care that the NHS should be funding.

I pm'd MSE and the shoret version of the short reply was no - it;s not something we can do. If there has been a change of heart then please - at least do some homework first instead of posting a poll as though it were a simple black and white issue.

The problem is what is meant by social care. Someone who is unable to wash, dress, toilet or feed themself would be deemed to need social care but why is that so very different from any other help required? Most people need both nursing and social care and to me the difference is in many cases pure semantics.

Torry_Quine

meher wrote: »

And I find it offensive and heartbreaking that the elderly are removed from their homes and put in care homes; I cannot help it, sorry - I'm willing to blame the state for not channelling resources into care for elderly in their own homes if rephrasing helps but if we cannot make an effort and sacrifice a little to make sure our parents/grandparents/elderly others are not removed from their own homes, then that does say something about family value/lessness that I'm unfamiliar with and when it is unfamiliar, he family dynamics is dysfunctional by definition, imo. If I'm perfectly honest, I could care very little if tax payer is affected or not, I couldn't care if it means we end up taking private insurance; I'd pitch a tent and protest against the elderly removed from their homes for care if I ever witness it.

As someone with a relative in a care home I take offence at this. They need to be in full-time care and no amount of good will could change this. It's very easy to say care homes are wrong but for many people they are the best place and not as you seem to say a negative experience. :eek:

2sides2everystory

meher wrote: »

... but if we cannot make an effort and sacrifice a little to make sure our parents/grandparents/elderly others are not removed from their own homes, then that does say something about family value/lessness that I'm unfamiliar with and when it is unfamiliar, the family dynamics is dysfunctional by definition, imo.

Hmm ... how many do you need in a "family" before it becomes functional to the extent that we then each might only need to sacrifice a little to achieve what you are are saying you are familiar with?

meher

Well, we can see what works and what's dysfunctional for ourselves - there's little to achieve by handwaving and taking on the offended role. I can see people are lining up and demanding that tax payers pay for them to save their inheritance. If a family network weren't so dysfunctional, instead of taking on the offending role, you'd be assuming the caring role. I've had my say and am done on this thread; not going to level myself with posts that I cannot relate with.