Is it right that some must sell their homes to pay care home costs?

leathersofa

Iyhr2011 - you're probably a bit older than I am, but you must remember, as I do, what the situation was for old people back in the 60s and 70s. Not that many lived long enough to become demented or so frail that they needed nursing care, and if they did, they didn't go into care homes at state expense. They went into geriatric hospitals. And that is not something anyone would want to see returning. On those terms,perhaps it could be argued that NI contributions paid for elder care,in that it was provided, on a very basic level, as part of the NHS, and that, plus social security and pensions, is what NI covers and always has. Nobody ever meant it to cover prolonged care in a residential home. It just isn't, and never was, enough for that, and that has never been the deal. The government has spent the contributions on providing a health service free at the point of need and the pensions that everyone over 65 gets. That's not misappropriating anyone's contributions. And no, the contributions were not higher in the past. They perhaps seemed so to all of us when we were younger and poorer, but leaving aside the various manipulations of tax/NI that allow governments to claim they've reduced one or the other, it's always been the case that anyone paid roughly a third of their gross income in deductions. I really don't see how anything has changed except that there are a lot more people in need of care and expectations in terms of conditions are much higher. And that just doesn't add up financially.

jap200

iyhr2011 wrote: »

I worked for 44 years before retiring. I always believed that it was my National Insurance contributions that would provide for a care home place should I need one - not Income Tax.
NI contributions were far higher when I was younger than they are now.
A care home place is not something anyone should give me but a service for which I, along with anyone else who paid NI Contributions, has already paid.
If the Government has mis-appropriated the funds it collected from me for care home fees if needed, why should I pay again?
What would happen to a private Insurance Company if they used everyone's premiums for something else and then said they couldn't pay out when you made a claim?
Shame on the Government.

Yes, sorry, you have missed something. The NI you paid was used to fund all the the things it is supposed to in order to help those who were in need at the time that you paid it. It hasn't gone into a pot with your name on, just to be used for you in the future. If you have ever used the NHS, or if you do (or will) receive a state pension then you have already benefitted from the NI you have paid personally.
The hard facts are that the balance between the number of NI tax payers (it is just a form of tax) and the number of NI-dependent service users has changed (mostly due to our increasing longevity) so that either we (NI payers) pay more, or we limit the payments to those who really are in need and can't afford to pay (e.g for care homes).

I would be interested to hear what alternative you would propose in the real world that we live in rather than in the ideal fantasy world that we don't.

leathersofa

I've been thinking more about this and of older relatives of mine who died in the 60s and 70s. Has everyone forgotten how different attitudes were then? The reason there has been such emphasis on avoiding ageism and giving older people choice and dignity is precisely because of how things were then, as a matter of course. If an older person got pneumonia, it was called 'the old man's friend' and not treated in the expectation that it would see them off. Stroke meant you died. No real treatment attempted. Cancer often not treated at all if you were over 70. Heart failure? No bypasses on older people. My mother was dying of heart failure in her late 70s, and got a quadruple bypass at the age of 80. Now here she is, 88 and severely demented. All this is why people didn't live long enough to need care homes. If you lived into your 80s, you did it on your own because you were tough, and if you became frail, you died quite soon. THAT is why NI was never envisaged as covering prolonged care in care homes. Geriatric hospitals were awful places, the place nobody wanted to be. Yes, they were part of the NHS. Whoop de do. If you're in a place full of demented, screaming, naked old people, stinking of urine and faeces, the fact that it's free tends to recede rather. Understaffed, Cinderella services for people with nowhere else to go. People nowadays would never accept that. And THAT is why people have to pay for care.

And btw, yes it does cost £1000 a week to provide 24/7 care. Try finding out what it costs for young learning disabled people to be cared for. About double that, and they don't have the physical needs that many old people do. It's not just a case of providing hotel care.

MikeXC

The focus these days is on keeping people in their own homes as long as possible with support workers or nursing staff going in as required. It's a win-win really - the person gets to stay at home longer and it's a cheaper service to run.

After that is 'residential' or 'nursing' home, the former usually being paid for by your local authority and the latter by NHS when there is medical need. It's a mistake to think it all comes through NHS.

The local authority (county or unitary) is not funded by NI, but by council tax. Councils are strictly controlled by central government as to how much they can raise council tax or they don't get their national grant money.

I'm sure in time social care will be combined with NHS as the statutory care requirements placed on councils are way beyond what they should be doing. That would take a huge burden off areas that might have a higher than average elderly population.

With regard to the poll, I think we've become a country with a far too big sense of 'entitlement' to services. We can super state provision, but not if we don't pay more tax (and that includes nailing down slippery tax-avoiding multi-nationals).

Mojisola

MikeXC wrote: »

The focus these days is on keeping people in their own homes as long as possible with support workers or nursing staff going in as required. It's a win-win really - the person gets to stay at home longer and it's a cheaper service to run.

Not when an elderly person is spending hours alone, unable to do much for themselves, just waiting and waiting until the carer rushes in to get them a cup of tea or take them to the toilet.

It is sometimes the best solution but just because it's cheaper than residential care doesn't make it the best thing for the person concerned.

leathersofa

That very much depends on how able the person is. My mother initially, when ill with heart failure, flatly refused to have any help at all, which as she lives two hours' drive away wasn't great. Then as things deteriorated she worked up to four carer visits a day. That was fine, though she complained constantly about being lonely, not because nobody visited - they did - but because with the escalating dementia she forgot they'd been there five minutes after they left. But physically she was ok. It was only when there started to be continence issues and she started wandering that the care home became the only option, and even now she talks about 'when she goes home'...the snag being that the home she's thinking of is the one she lived in as a child, because she's forgotten everything that happened to her after the age of 16. It's never going to be perfect but nothing ever is, and there are always other people in the equation, and what is the best possible solution for an individual may well change as things progress. And to get back to the original question, if we want the best possible option for our relatives and ourselves, we have to accept that that probably won't be free. But the thing is, nobody is saying relatives have to pay. All that is being asked for is a contribution from the elderly person"s own resources. How can that not be fair? I am genuinely puzzled at this.

GwylimT

How else are we going to pay for it? Either those with the funds pay towards their care, or we all contribute more to taxation to pay for residential care.

My partner and I own our own home, so when she does need residential care which she will, why shouldn't we contribute towards those costs when we can afford it.

So if your house is worth more than £123K you pay, which is fair enough, I'm really if someone was sat with that much in the bank would be saying oh no the poor old sod shouldn't pay a penny.

wwtrend

I think the current system of making people sell their home when taken into care is cruel and barbaric. Many people taken into a home don't want to go. Taking someone into care and selling the house behind them takes away all hope of them being able to recover and return home even if it is not possible for them to do so. I have known several elderly neighbours that this has happened to and they haven't survived longer than six months. Moreover this was an unhappy time for them stripped of the most sentimental possession a person might have. Your safe place where the memory of loved ones are kept. Even more horrendous is that they may have lived with a relative a son or daughter who has taken care of them for years, living in the family home. Many are low paid having sacrificed the opportunity of a career to take care of a relative. Carer's allowance is very low. Carer's allowance is not paid if the carer is over 60. There are lots of cases of family, who stayed single and at home to look after elderly and infirm parents. They are just cast out into rented accommodation.

I am not against the house being sold to pay for care but I do not believe it should be done in that person's lifetime against their will. We should all be allowed hope, take it away and you take away the will to live. Consideration should also be given to a relative who has acted as a carer and lived at home.

I believe the way forward is insurance but for the current elderly generation we need a system that considers their mental wellbeing and that of their carers before allowing the state to jump in to grab their assets. Indeed it does penalise home owners and the inappropriate haste in which they carry out this process initiates the rapid mental decline of the elderly, infirm and their carers is to me criminal. It is the equivalent of state euthanasia, a death sentence to so many.

A life without hope is no life!

supersaverg

williamkn wrote: »

I am almost 81, very sound brain but body not so good. I own a fairly large house that my son now lives in and I live in a 2 bed flat that my son owns, works very well for both of us. . :j

Admirable dear boy.....!:beer:

supersaverg

Can't take it with you!