Avoiding care home fees.

MoneySeeker1

Personally, I sympathise with OP and I think two things are clear here:

- people have forgotten the State used to pay the cost of carehomes, as it's been some time since they did so (think it's about 30 years). It's become the "new normal" to expect houses will be grabbed to cover that particular item of health care costs. But it didn't use to be.

- many people are influenced by their own personal circumstances as to what their view is on whether it's fair for the State to pay for that aspect of medical care or no (and it is a form of medical care, as the vast majority of people go into care homes in the first place because they aren't well enough to keep living in their own homes). I've not forgotten a former boyfriend that used to argue vehemently with me that people should be made to sell their homes to cover care home costs and I could see that he was advocating that because he had nothing to lose personally from having that viewpoint (ie because he wasn't a home-owner and didn't ever anticipate being one).

Manxman_in_exile

BML wrote: »

I seek a political solution which we will never get from the Tories who resent taxation but a political solution has to be sought because the whole Care Industry is a mess at the moment.

I agree that a political solution is required, but our political system is geared towards short-termism and winning the next election. Anything that requires action (and cost) now for future benefits, is too hot a potato to handle*. We have a growing aging population (who arguably have enjoyed considerable material benefit over the last 30 - 40 years, and I'm one of them) and younger generations who probably won't be so fortunate, and who provide a smaller tax base.


By the time politicians admit that there's a problem (which they already must know) it'll be too late. Bit like climate change.


*I loathed Margaret Thatcher, but to be fair to her, she took some very unpopular decisions which many people would argue did have future benefit for the country. I'm not necessarily one of them, but I understand the POV.

Mojisola

MoneySeeker1 wrote: »

- people have forgotten the State used to pay the cost of carehomes

I used to visit an elderly relative with dementia in a State care home - it wasn't what people expect now - it was basically a ward of beds with only curtains for privacy and one small wardrobe for each person's belongings - meals were taken at a long table in the middle of the ward and most of the day was spent in a connected lounge with very little to do.

We could easily go back to those conditions and probably afford to pay for the places from taxes but would people really want that?

Keep_pedalling

MoneySeeker1 wrote: »

Personally, I sympathise with OP and I think two things are clear here:

- people have forgotten the State used to pay the cost of carehomes, as it's been some time since they did so (think it's about 30 years). It's become the "new normal" to expect houses will be grabbed to cover that particular item of health care costs. But it didn't use to be.

- many people are influenced by their own personal circumstances as to what their view is on whether it's fair for the State to pay for that aspect of medical care or no (and it is a form of medical care, as the vast majority of people go into care homes in the first place because they aren't well enough to keep living in their own homes). I've not forgotten a former boyfriend that used to argue vehemently with me that people should be made to sell their homes to cover care home costs and I could see that he was advocating that because he had nothing to lose personally from having that viewpoint (ie because he wasn't a home-owner and didn't ever anticipate being one).

State funded care homes are a relatively recent invention in that they did not exist before the 1950s (unless you count work houses). The demographics of the country have changed drastically since then, and trying to fund free care for everyone is not a realistic expectation. Even in Norway where taxation if higher and they have not squandered their oil money it is recognised that these demographic changes are going to be difficult to manage.

It really is unfair to expect to poorer tax payers to pay for asset rich pensioners just so they can pass that wealth to their children.

AnotherJoe

BML wrote: »

I have always paid tax of one sort or another while also testing my entitlement to receiving a benefit. Like most folk I resent the idea that having saved to buy my own house the state should be allowed to take it away from me if I or my wife become affected with an illness that requires us to go into care especially when a large section of society live in council house accommodation and spend their money on bingo, booze or other forms of entertainment.
The state would NOT take away your house from you if your wife had to go into care (or vice versa). They might if you were the survivor and then you needed to go into care, but in that case I'd rather sell it myself and choose my own one rather than being dumped into the cheapest one available where my fellow compatriots might indeed be former council house tenants who spent all their money on booze and bingo and other things beginning with 'b'.

Today I saw a newspaper with the heading, "Couples aged 50+ Protect your home from care home fees." It then suggested the following. "It's not a good idea to leave your half share of the home to your surviving partner but instead leave them the USE of your share. This can be achieved by making new Grandparents wills."
Are those valid suggestions or nonsense?

Yes, its perfectly valid to leave your half of the house to evade care home fees. And can be done via a simple will you dont need to do it via some scammy type advert where you may end up with a Universal Wealth type operation, nor do you need be a grandparent or leave to grandkids.
It may mean you end up in a much crummier care home than if you independently financed by selling the whole house, or it may not. Depends on multiple factors.
Until recently my will (and MrsAJ's) were in fact such wills for that purpose and also to avoid the golddigger new spouse possibility meaning the kids lose out, but we've just unwound them and gone back to leaving to each other, as it put too many restrictions for me on what we could do with the house when one of us had died. I look forward to dying in the midst of passion with my new 24 year old wife when I'm aged 97.

Manxman_in_exile

Mojisola wrote: »

I used to visit an elderly relative with dementia in a State care home - it wasn't what people expect now - it was basically a ward of beds with only curtains for privacy and one small wardrobe for each person's belongings - meals were taken at a long table in the middle of the ward and most of the day was spent in a connected lounge with very little to do.

We could easily go back to those conditions and probably afford to pay for the places from taxes but would people really want that?

When I joined the NHS in the late 80s I worked for a psychiatric hospital (as they were then called). The site I was based at was a former workhouse and specialised in ESMI (elderly severely mentally ill) patients. The wards were not particularly pleasant (no privacy etc as you mention) but there was a sort of community spirit about the place which was lacking in the modern purpose designed facilities we built and which, on the face of it, were more homely. The old place was a proper "asylum" in the sense it was self-contained and rather peaceful.


Of course, we sold the old place off for re-development when we became a trust, and eventually the remaining ESMI patients were transferred to care homes. Whether they felt better off I don't know.

BML

If you visited many care homes now you would find drastic reductions in the treatment of yesteryear.

BML

Are you suggesting eugenics.

onwards&upwards

MoneySeeker1 wrote: »

Personally, I sympathise with OP and I think two things are clear here:

- people have forgotten the State used to pay the cost of carehomes, as it's been some time since they did so (think it's about 30 years). It's become the "new normal" to expect houses will be grabbed to cover that particular item of health care costs. But it didn't use to be.

- many people are influenced by their own personal circumstances as to what their view is on whether it's fair for the State to pay for that aspect of medical care or no (and it is a form of medical care, as the vast majority of people go into care homes in the first place because they aren't well enough to keep living in their own homes). I've not forgotten a former boyfriend that used to argue vehemently with me that people should be made to sell their homes to cover care home costs and I could see that he was advocating that because he had nothing to lose personally from having that viewpoint (ie because he wasn't a home-owner and didn't ever anticipate being one).

Homes aren’t ‘grabbed’ and using ridiculous words like that isn’t very helpful.

I own my home, I am very much opposed to people trying to get out of paying for care.

spadoosh

BML wrote: »

Spadoosh, You state, "Free at the point of use care homes isnt compatible with our tax system or willingness to pay for it."
I'm in my mid eighties and apart from being hard of hearing and diabetic reasonably fit but I no longer manage a four mile a day run. I have a better understanding of the care industry than most in that when I retired I undertook a course of training organised by our Local Authority and as a retired HR Manager I was not impressed with the performance of the care home I did my placement with. One of my daughters works as a care assistant and the management she experiences appalls me. Yet all round the area that I live in new care homes are springing up most staffed by utter incompetents. However, we are obliged to accept that the elderly population is increasing so something has to be done and I believe that such an exercise can only be managed by Government supported by central taxation if those of the elderly population are to be cared for in a civilized manner.
If you disagree then please offer an alternative.

The alternative is the government being honest. They are unable to offer the level of support people want at the price they are willing to pay. At that point they need to step back and accept they cant offer a solution to it.

Its about personal responsibility (my most used sentence on MSE). By telling people theyre covered you remove any responsibility from them. If people arent accountable for their actions they become less responsible. When they are accountable, theyre more responsible. If you knew that the government dont have your back and you knew you would need care as you age, youd do something about it, ie ensure you have a separate savings pot to pay for a level of care youd be happy with. Seeing as the government have told you they will look after you, youve made no provision for such care. You where irresponsible.

Me, im not anticipating the government being able to help me as i age. Im combating this in a few ways. Im ensuring money is put away towards my retirement, which includes the cost of care etc. I have insurance policies to cover illness/death/job loss before that time. Im trying to teach my kid that family is important, about mutual benefits and encourage her to be a caring person so she is more willing to consider helping me should i need it.

Why when im being sensible are you asking me to pay for your care home fees because you wherent? I bet you have more money than me, a nicer house than me, a nicer car than me had/do have a better paid job than me.


For what its worth, i know a fair amount about the care sector having helped set up a business in it. Im more money side of things than the caring side of thigns but obviously you generally know whats going on.

House of lords economic affairs comittee has today announced that £8bn is needed to bring just adult social care up to a reasonable standard. 1.4 million peopls care need wherent met according to the reports. You somehow think that government can manage this? Look at the track record, there is literally zero evidence that they are capable of managing and offering an adequate level of social care.

Time for a re think. Tell people to look after themselves, maybe they will maybe they wont, at least they wont be playing the lottery of poltics and winning votes. Where, some who do exactly as the government recommend (like yourself) end up having their plans scuppered as policy changes.

When you see the devastation on people faces having worked and saved all their life for a retirement date, for the government to have changed that date and them realising they now have to work a few more years before they retire. Its not on. Too much relying on government and too many failed promises.

You need to look after yourself.