Talk of raising the cap on care home fees

cavework

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Some people have worked in low-paid jobs all their lives and haven't been able to afford to buy a house or accumulate much in savings.

People like the carers, cooks and cleaners in the expensive care home that those with their own means can access.

The people funded by the State don't have the choice. So it evens out in the end.

No it doesn't , not when this government and others in the past promised everyone that by paying National Insurance their needs would be met should they require help in old age.
These people , no matter if they bought their own house or lived in a Council house still all paid into a system that has let them down and the people now running the country are more interested in feathering their own nests and promising things 20 years on than admitting responsibility for these people who now have no way of objecting to the decisions that are being made on their behalf

cavework

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Some people have worked in low-paid jobs all their lives and haven't been able to afford to buy a house or accumulate much in savings.

People like the carers, cooks and cleaners in the expensive care home that those with their own means can access.

The people funded by the State don't have the choice. So it evens out in the end.

You reallyare not getting my point .. the argument is not about those who could buy their own homes or were given Council housing in the 50.s (that is the group I am refering to here) It is the fact that these people went through WW2 , some gave up 5 plus years of their life and returned to be told that this country would look after them because if they worked and paid into the "wonderful" NI system their country would look after them when they needed it.

Errata

No it doesn't , not when this government and others in the past promised everyone that by paying National Insurance their needs would be met should they require help in old age.

No government, current or past has promised that help would be free.

cavework

chris_m wrote: »

But shouldn't that aid be directed at countries that really need our help? You know, who can't afford to support their people? As opposed to ones that probably could afford it if they didn't spend so much on such essentials of life as, for example, nuclear weapons or space programs? OK, I know aid to one of such countries is due to be ended by 2015 but why the heck are we still giving them cash now?

We should not be giving money to any other country until we are sure the well being of the people living in the UK are being looked after first and foremost

cavework

Errata wrote: »

No government, current or past has promised that help would be free.

But they never said that our elderly would suffer for the sake of relationships with other countries that , might , just might, ,,, no guarantee look favourably at the UK because we chucked money that was dearly needed here at them in the faint hope of future favours.

PaulF81

The amount of money thrown at pensioners makes the oveseas aid budget look like chicken feed. Its just not comparable. And you could argue, any chance the OA budget has to mold the future of the UK is a far better investment than pouring it into a demographic who will be largely dead in the next 10 years.

chewmylegoff

cavework wrote: »

But they never said that our elderly would suffer for the sake of relationships with other countries that , might , just might, ,,, no guarantee look favourably at the UK because we chucked money that was dearly needed here at them in the faint hope of future favours.

the elderly are not suffering - if they cannot afford to pay for care, the government steps in and pays for it.

chewmylegoff

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

You might change your mind when your money runs out and you, kept breathing by medical science, get dumped into a decrepit Victorian mansion smelling of urine.

The present system is a complete lottery out of the control of the individual.

it's not out of control of the individual if you can afford to fund it yourself, which is exactly what i would do if i was in that situation; i would sell my house and use the proceeds to pay fees in the care home of my choice (which is exactly what my granddad did...).

if you can't afford to fund it yourself then you get the rubbish government funded option. personally i can't understand why anyone who had significant equity in a house wouldn't want to avoid that outcome.

phoebe1989seb

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Not with moderate to severe dementia they don't. That needs full time professional care in a managed environment.

What he said......

Between us DH and I have three parents with Dementia/Alzheimer's - we intended to have both my parents live with us when only my mum had been diagnosed, but before we completed work on an annexe for them my dad was diagnosed too......there's no way on this earth that DH and I, despite only being in our 40s, would be able to care for them both adequately Instead their house has had to be sold to pay their crippling fees - but at least they are getting far better (professional) care than we could give.......

Curiously though, even though DH's dad's condition is not as advanced as my dad's, he gets his fees paid because he had to be sectioned - he just tops them up in order to be in a better home than the LA would provide......this doesn't seem right somehow

Mojisola

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the elderly are not suffering - if they cannot afford to pay for care, the government steps in and pays for it.

I know in some areas the council funded homes are good but I wouldn't want to have to live in the ones I've looked at round here. I would consider that the people in them are suffering and, without the capital to move somewhere better, they're stuck there.