Protecting savings from nursing home costs

Mojisola

83dons wrote: »

It's about the principle of free health care in this country.

Care should be free from cradle to grave and whether you like it or not your taxes pay for this regardless if whether a tramp or Richard Branson required cancer treament. a disturbing distinction is being drawn here that when someone requires care in old age they then have to start paying for it?

Surely this notion is wrong and goes against the principles of healthcare in this country!

Everyone still gets free health care, whatever their age - GPs, health visitors, hospital stays, etc.

Why should someone who goes into a residential home live for free while someone with similar care needs who stays at home with family and paid carers supporting them still have to pay their own bills? Should the taxpayer start paying all their utility bills?

redpete

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Perhaps for the same reason that your taxes pay for someone's education or health care, so saving them from paying for these expensive items privately?

As long as you believe that the state should provide any subsidised assistance to anybody, then it will be inevitable that you will pay some of those costs through your taxes.
That's how a welfare state works.

Apologies for my middle-aged drift to the right showing itself. You do have a point but the way it works needs to be carefully considered. Fortunately I haven't had to look into the details too carefully but I would like to see a clear distinction between costs of care due to failing health and what might be called the costs of 'sheltered' accommodation. The former I would expect an individual to be sheltered from the full costs, the latter should largely come under an individual's responsibility (with a safety net).
I think my reaction to questions like this is because I read between the lines and see the next generation worrying about their inheritance.
There does need to be some brave proposals from politicians that address the problem of an ageing population and the consequent costs and need for funding.

atush

the only solution if you want a gold plated social service is to pay highre taxes- like over 50%.

You up for that? I'm not.

Daniel54

83dons wrote: »

People can pm any solutions they have come up with rather than enter into this contentious debate if they would prefer!

You are most likely to be pm'd by scammers who have a quick look through your posting history , see your grandmother has assets of over £300k and assume she is the subject of this thread

On another thread you are asking about POA. The attorney would be in clear breach of their duties if they do not make her assets freely and openly available for her care and needs.

Local Authorities can and do cross check probate amounts against declarations made before death and can put a charge on the estate if their investigations show benefits fraud .See a live example here :-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5254559

My mother(for whom I have POA) has had live in care at her home for the past 5 years.She has had considerable assistance from the State by way of additional allowances and free medical care ,including regular visits from the district nurses.

The fact that her estate has been reduced by over £150k due to the care costs doesn't bother me in the least and thankfully my children recognise that the money has been spent to provide their grandmother with the best quality of life remaining.