Being put in a home then told to sell your house to pay for it

seven-day-weekend

Thank you Edinvestor, you are always a mine of information.

I agree with you about dementia, my dear sister (nearly 20 years older than me) developed Alzheimers in her early 50s and lived to be 75. Happily she was looked after by her husband and daughter for most of that time, only going into care for the final year. But she spent at leat ten years knowing no-one except her husband and daughter and then if R had different clothes on or S did her hair differently she didn't know them. The last two years she knew no-one at all. It's a dreadful condition and it is quite understandable that it is known as 'the long goodbye'.

And people like my sister are not classed as needing nursing care? A complete and utter cop-out imho.:mad:

But I agree it all needs sorting out.

Garnet_Gem

On one hand, if you have the money why shouldn't you pay for care? On the other hand, why should you pay for care when others get the same care after squandering everything and in some cases have lived off the taxpayers all their lives? If I needed care, I'd do my utmost to stay in my own house even if meant paying for help. I'd rather pay someone to help me stay independent in old age than go into a home, be it private or state run.
The generation coming up is the first ordinary one to have expectations of inheriting money and property when their parents die. Perhaps they should be taught that the money belongs to their parents and it's fine if the parents spend it (doesn't matter whether it's on luxuries or healthcare).

seven-day-weekend

How much does it cost to have full-time care in your own home, maybe with you providing board and lodging for the person, I wonder?

Becles

Just food for thought:

My Gran has dementia. She currently lives in a sheltered accomodation flat, but my Mam has to pop in daily to make sure she takes her medication for both the dementia and a thyroid problem, has groceries in, collects her laundry etc.

When my parents go on holiday, they have to put Gran in a care home as there is nobody else to call in on her as regularly as my Mam does.

The first time they went away, they paid for her to go into a private nursing home. Gran had a great time there and said the food was nice, and they did activities. She enjoyed it so much, she signed up for their day club, and goes back twice a week for her dinner and to join in the fun!

The second time my parents went on holiday, a social worker said Gran was entitled to free restbite(?) care in one of their homes. Gran said it was horrible. First they unpacked her case when she wasn't in her bedroom, and then Gran got upset because she didn't know where her things were. She opened her empty case and thought people had stole her stuff!

She missed some doses of her medication, as if people are asleep when the medicine trolley comes round, they don't wake them up and they don't pop back later. Then she managed to "escape" and walked 2 miles back to her flat, in just her slippers with no coat on. The warden at the flat rang the home to ask why she was back, and they didn't even know she was missing!

When Mam collected Gran, then never told her about any of this. It was the warden at the flat who told Mam everything that had gone on.

When the time comes and Gran needs to move from her flat into full time care, I'm so pleased she has the funds available from her savings to pay for her stay in the first home. It's far superior to the one the social worker put her in.

EdInvestor

Update on the state of play in financing nursing care:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/retirement/article.html?in_article_id=422466&in_page_id=6

margaretclare

Ian_W wrote: »

But there were a hell of a lot of folks of my mother's generation who were poor because of circumstances other than squandering their money on fast cars, booze and fags and who also worked damned hard - they had no choice in care provision.
Might sound cruel but be grateful your parents had the money to provide care for themselves rather than rely on what socialist services could afford. Lots of folk who weren't wasters all their lives don't!

I am glad you've pointed this out, Ian. Because I become quite offended by the frequently-heard assertion that it's either/or: (a) work hard, pay taxes, buy your own home, expect to leave an inheritance to the next generation OR (b) blow it all on fags, booze, holidays and cars. It's nothing like as simple as that.

I think I've had my money's worth out of the NI contributions and taxes that I've paid over the years. If I started to list all the major surgery I've had starting in 1983, you'd be bored before I got to the end of it. I'm still having cataract surgery, which has the miraculous effect of not only dealing with cataracts but also a lifetime of short sight - I now have perfect vision! My late husband, my present husband and my daughter all had extensive surgery and excellent health-care. I had a great-aunt who died in the 1950s, died in agony because hip replacements weren't heard of then. I'd have been like her, in agony since my late 40s, if such surgery hadn't been invented. All this extends our independence and our quality of life. We're now able to live independently for much, much longer.

My aunt ended her days in a council-run home in 1985 - she'd had polio in 1926 and most of her life was spent sitting on the floor and, if she moved, it was on hands and knees. She was the busiest person I ever knew, though, her hands were never still. My mum was unmarried and literally scrubbed floors for a living. To her, the basic state pension was manna from heaven - she didn't have to go out on her bike on cold mornings, the money just arrived. Sadly, she didn't live long to enjoy it.

I was the first to go to grammar school and the first to get into the whole house-buying game in the early 1960s. But we didn't regard it as money for our old age nor as an inheritance to someone else - to us it was simply a place to live, a place to bring up a family. And I still think that's a good way to look at it.

None of my family ever had much, but they taught me to save, and after losing that idea for some decades, I've now rediscovered it. Like Kittie, I'm saving because I don't know what our needs may be in time to come. I'm prepared to pay for help to come in, to enable us to live independently.

There were many people in low-paid jobs - good honest people, not the kind that smoked, drank, gambled and went on holidays, who did their best in difficult circumstances. This group - perhaps the majority! - should be remembered and honoured, as well as groups (a) and (b) above.

Margaret

jazzyjustlaw

Before I express my opinion can you clarify something. I thought you said the state tried to house them in a state run home but couldnt keep them both together is this true?

seven-day-weekend

margaretclare wrote: »

I am glad you've pointed this out, Ian. Because I become quite offended by the frequently-heard assertion that it's either/or: (a) work hard, pay taxes, buy your own home, expect to leave an inheritance to the next generation OR (b) blow it all on fags, booze, holidays and cars. It's nothing like as simple as that.

I think I've had my money's worth out of the NI contributions and taxes that I've paid over the years. If I started to list all the major surgery I've had starting in 1983, you'd be bored before I got to the end of it. I'm still having cataract surgery, which has the miraculous effect of not only dealing with cataracts but also a lifetime of short sight - I now have perfect vision! My late husband, my present husband and my daughter all had extensive surgery and excellent health-care. I had a great-aunt who died in the 1950s, died in agony because hip replacements weren't heard of then. I'd have been like her, in agony since my late 40s, if such surgery hadn't been invented. All this extends our independence and our quality of life. We're now able to live independently for much, much longer.

My aunt ended her days in a council-run home in 1985 - she'd had polio in 1926 and most of her life was spent sitting on the floor and, if she moved, it was on hands and knees. She was the busiest person I ever knew, though, her hands were never still. My mum was unmarried and literally scrubbed floors for a living. To her, the basic state pension was manna from heaven - she didn't have to go out on her bike on cold mornings, the money just arrived. Sadly, she didn't live long to enjoy it.

I was the first to go to grammar school and the first to get into the whole house-buying game in the early 1960s. But we didn't regard it as money for our old age nor as an inheritance to someone else - to us it was simply a place to live, a place to bring up a family. And I still think that's a good way to look at it.

None of my family ever had much, but they taught me to save, and after losing that idea for some decades, I've now rediscovered it. Like Kittie, I'm saving because I don't know what our needs may be in time to come. I'm prepared to pay for help to come in, to enable us to live independently.

There were many people in low-paid jobs - good honest people, not the kind that smoked, drank, gambled and went on holidays, who did their best in difficult circumstances. This group - perhaps the majority! - should be remembered and honoured, as well as groups (a) and (b) above.

Margaret

Margaret, I agree with that, my mum and dad were the same. My dad worked permanent nights in a factory for years for a pittance; my mum was a housewife like many women of her generation. Neither of them smoke, drank, had a car or went on holiday. They could not afford to buy a house.

My dad was fit and healthy (and looked twenty years younger than his age) and lived at home with my mum until he was killed in a car accident at the age of 89. My mum was physically healthy but got forgetful at around 90 and went by her own choice into an excellent State-run home where she was very happy and made new friends, and eventually died at nearly 94.

I'm so glad her home was a good one, as she would have had no choice otherwise, having no capital.

To the poster above who queried the lack of facilities for a married couplein a State-run home; AFAIK this is quite common, it depends upon what care the person needs and if two people need different care, then many homes can't provide it and they have to go into separate ones.

Yet another reason to have your own funding. Again, choice!

milkydrink

I do understand exactly where you are coming from Beate.

BUT, if your parents had no money/house yes the state would have provided but as you said they would have been seperated.
But as they did have the money they were able to choose one to go into together & thats worth anything.

So if they had squandered, yes they would have been provided for, but not together (as you said).

Look at it that way & I'm sure it will be a comfort to you.
Sorry for your losses

ian_duncan_smith

I know people aren't going to like what I'm about to say, but here goes.

In the "good old days", families used to stay together. I don't mean necessarily in the same house, but close by, just down the road or in the same locality. This meant that if "nan" suffered a bout of illness, or "uncle Albert" fell down the stairs there would be sufficient family around him/her to take care of them. Community spirit was such that if there was an elderly neighbour who had no family of his own that became infirm or ill the neighbours would drop by to see if he needed anything from the shops as they were heading that way anyway. I know because I remember these things from my own childhood. Usually what would happen is that these individuals would give sweets and treats to the children in the community as their way of returning the affection, and provide a listening ear to anyone who needed someone to talk to. Apply their insight and the wisdom that comes with age to any problems that you went to them with, and eventually when death came to them they would leave what little nik naks and wealth they had accumulated to their friends and family. This was how my stamp collection and coin collection started.

These days, due the need for work related mobility these communities are no longer able to build up like they used to. Son is at one end of the country, mother at the other end and uncle at the other side of the world. Add to that the "cult of youth" which dismisses the elderly as "old fashioned", "out of touch" and "irrelevant", and you can see why the elderly end up in the position that they find themselves in.

If the state is now taking over the role of looking after the elderly that was traditionally the domain of the family and the community, then it stands to reason that it should also get the benefits that traditionally pass to the community and family.

What about the next of kin I hear you say? Well they kind of have a choice to make if you think about it. Pursue your carrier/family life free from the "burden" of having to care for you elders, with the greater freedom and higher standard of living that comes with it, or make the necessary sacrifices now to take care of them, and enjoy the fruits of your sacrifice down the line when your parents repay you for putting their needs before your own (just like they did for you when you were a baby/child) by being in a position to leave you a healthy inheritance.

It's all about swings and roundabouts at the end of the day. I gave up a potential career as a diplomat with the foreign office as I wanted stability for my children, and to be near my mum so I could provide her with as much support as we possibly can. My brother who is a lawyer married with children still lives with my mum, even though he has the brains and aptitude to be able to get a job with a city firm in London.

Having her family around her keeps my mum happy and her mind active, and even the slightest onset of illness gets dealt with before it gets too serious. This in itself delays the onset of old age and keeps her young at heart, thereby hopefully delaying the day when she becomes housebound or in need of round the clock care, and if they day ever does arise we will be here to take care of her.