Care Costs - How Much???!!!

theoretica

Mickey666 said:

I’m sorry if it seemed that way.  Of course it is a bad thing for women (indeed anyone) to have no choice.  My point was that being a home maker and/or carer is not, of itself, a bad thing.

Yet you started this thread suggesting paying someone a 'living allowance', rather than a wage for caring and housekeeping.

Mickey666 said:

A friend's mother has recently had to move into a care home.  very sad but all too common etc etc.  But what has astounded me is that it is costing £1200/week!.  I don't know the full details but that's not really relevant to my question . . . which is, has anyone here any experience of home care alternatives, because it seems to me that at if care homes are charging 40, 50, 60k per year it must surely be cheaper to employ a full-time home carer.  Indeed, many retired people have spare bedrooms in their homes so why not even a live-in carer?  Perhaps this is what we used to call a 'housekeeper' in the good old days?  They get somewhere to live, rent-free, plus a 'living allowance' and they run the household for the elderly owner.  OK, maybe not so appropriate if there are serious medical conditions, but for basic old-age frailty it must surely be an option.  After all, I don't think there was the prevalence of care homes in the 'good old days' - or perhaps 'extended families' were more the norm back then?  - but they certainly seem to be raking in the profits these days.  Is there really no alternative?

onwards&upwards

Mickey666 said:

onwards&upwards said:

Mickey666 said:

onwards&upwards said:

Mickey666 said:

Mojisola said:

Mickey666 said:

Once we had multi-generational homes or at least families all living close together so care needs were more shared within the family.  I know that times change but sometimes wonder if there’s a hidden price to pay for our progress.

There was a hidden price to pay in those days - women were often expected to leave work when they got married and had to rely on their husbands for money.  They had no choice but to be homemakers, child raisers and carers for the elderly family members.

You say that as if it’s a bad thing.  

Oh wow. 

You do realise you just just dismissed every contribution a working woman ever made to the world, right?  And basically assumed there are no more they might make in the future that might be worth having

Actually, I made no suggestion that women SHOULD stay at home to be ‘home makers’.  

Maybe you need to re-read what you wrote, as you seemed to be saying it wasn’t a bad thing for women to have no choice and be expected to be homemakers and carers. 

‘Seemed’ to be saying.
I’m sorry if it seemed that way.  Of course it is a bad thing for women (indeed anyone) to have no choice.  My point was that being a home maker and/or carer is not, of itself, a bad thing.

Ok, but if you read it back above that is literally what you said. 

I’m glad to hear you do think women can have a contribution to make other than caring for their family members, and that they should have a choice about whether they do that or not. 

onwards&upwards

Mickey666 said:

tooldle said:

Mickey666 said:

tooldle said:

Mickey666 said:

Mojisola said:

Mickey666 said:

Once we had multi-generational homes or at least families all living close together so care needs were more shared within the family.  I know that times change but sometimes wonder if there’s a hidden price to pay for our progress.

There was a hidden price to pay in those days - women were often expected to leave work when they got married and had to rely on their husbands for money.  They had no choice but to be homemakers, child raisers and carers for the elderly family members.

You say that as if it’s a bad thing.  Fact is, in those days a single wage could support a family whereas that seems to be something of a rarity today.  A lot of problems today seem to be precisely because women are effectively forced to work to provide for the family unit (assuming the ‘family unit’ actually consists of two parents of course) meaning that child care has now become a huge issue for many families and ‘latch key’ kids are more or less the norm these days.  Could this reduced level of parental presence be a reason for child delinquency these days?

It is a bad thing. I’m not forced to work. I love my work. Would i swop my life as a professional engineer to be a home maker? Not a chance. 

With respect, that’s only your (perfectly valid) opinion but it’s hardly proof that ‘home making’ is a bad thing.  I know a number of couples where the wife is blissfully happy being a ‘home maker’ and looking after her children all day and would probably hate to go out to work every day, even as a professional engineer.  But, of course, none of that makes your choice a ‘bad thing’ either.  That’s often the problem with these sorts of discussions, it’s very easy to project our own ideals onto others.

I’m not projecting. My mum was a stay at home parent. She enjoyed it, which was lucky as women in those days were days were sacked on marriage. Some were really lucky and were allowed to stay until they got pregnant. Any choice of education or career was also limited. I’m certain it does suit some people, but it definitely would not suit me. To be forced into that path just for being female must have been soul destroying for some people. 

Yes, being forced into any path against their will would surely be soul destroying for anyone; whether that be a ‘housewife’, following Father down the mine, joining the family business or becoming a doctor.    Fortunately, people generally have more choices these days, which must be a good thing, but although there are generally fewer social constraints I wonder if there are more economic constraints these days?  Eg the rise in home ownership, multiple cars/family, expensive consumer electronics, foreign holidays etc etc puts a significant economic strain on the traditional family unit, requiring both partners to have full-time jobs.  Two steps forward, one step back perhaps?

The social changes also mean that people aren’t pushed into a traditional family unit.  They can live a different way if they want.  My partner and I live apart, neither of us have children, if we’d wanted to have same sex relationships, or be single parents, or have kids but dad stay at home and mum work that would all be fine today, not so much even 30 years ago. 

GaleSF63

tooldle said:

I’m not projecting. My mum was a stay at home parent. She enjoyed it, which was lucky as women in those days were days were sacked on marriage. Some were really lucky and were allowed to stay until they got pregnant. Any choice of education or career was also limited. I’m certain it does suit some people, but it definitely would not suit me. To be forced into that path just for being female must have been soul destroying for some people. 

My grandmother trained as a teacher, but in the 1930s when my grandfather was unable to work because he had TB she was unable to get a job because the LA wouldn't employ married women in any circumstances. She was fortunately able to get one in another county.

fred246

I had a relative who was in a care home. It was split between local authority funded places and privately funded places. Private funders got exactly the same care but they paid 40% extra than the local authority paid for their places. It did seem unfair on the private payers. I decided I wouldn't plan for care home fees. A lot of people say you should but how do you do it in practice with fees at this level? We are a standard couple living in our home. If one of us dies then we would easily pay for the second one from the sale of our home. If the first one needs care we would have to pay from savings. Is there a recommended amount to keep in savings? I would think the vast majority of people wouldn't have adequate savings.

MoneySeeker1

Mickey666 said:

"Is there a recommended amount to keep in savings? I would think the vast majority of people wouldn't have adequate savings. "

I don't know about a recommended amount to keep in savings for possibel care coss, but since fees can easily be upwards of £40k per year I reckon it would have to be into 5-figures, depending on how long you think care might be needed - which of course is really anyone's guess.  I think you're right about the vast majority of people not having adequate savings!

This whole thing raises many issues around how we should responsibly plan our lives.  £100k+ is a lot of money to put to one side (even if that's possible) to 'self-insure' against possible future care home costs, especially when not spending that money while fit and healthy must significantly reduce one's lifestyle.  Is this really a good way to live?

I'm increasingly of the opinion that denying people the right to assisted suicide towards the end of their lives is a very bad thing, especially for fully cognitive people with untreatable terminal illnesses.  What is the point of prolonging the agony (often literally) of dying?  I'm starting to think that spending everything on enjoying life while I can and only saving a few hundred pounts for a one-way ticket to Switzerland might be a reasonable late-life 'care' option!

 

I've long been of the view that I'm only going to have what savings I require for myself and my house (eg to have some money to one side in case my house needed a new roof or my body needed medical treatment the NHS refused to provide). Beyond that - I certainly won't even try to have "care home savings" - as I have no intention of ever going in a care home. I've also long since decided that, if ever I became seriously ill (or when I see a 90th birthday looming) then I will kill myself at that point. The law change to make voluntary euthanasia legal in this country is now pretty near I estimate and I would be very surprised if it isn't in law within the next 5 years.

Re your option - ie a one-way trip to Switzerland, then I believe the cost is £10,000 (not the few hundred £s I blithely assumed it would be as well). That is very expensive and does sound like someone somewhere wishes to make a profit from this (rather than making a fair/reasonable charge) and so, for anyone that wouldnt take the DIY route and thinks the law might not change in time for them = you need £10,000 savings for that purpose just in case.

onomatopoeia99

Mickey666 said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

Mickey666 said:

"Is there a recommended amount to keep in savings? I would think the vast majority of people wouldn't have adequate savings. "

I don't know about a recommended amount to keep in savings for possibel care coss, but since fees can easily be upwards of £40k per year I reckon it would have to be into 5-figures, depending on how long you think care might be needed - which of course is really anyone's guess.  I think you're right about the vast majority of people not having adequate savings!

This whole thing raises many issues around how we should responsibly plan our lives.  £100k+ is a lot of money to put to one side (even if that's possible) to 'self-insure' against possible future care home costs, especially when not spending that money while fit and healthy must significantly reduce one's lifestyle.  Is this really a good way to live?

I'm increasingly of the opinion that denying people the right to assisted suicide towards the end of their lives is a very bad thing, especially for fully cognitive people with untreatable terminal illnesses.  What is the point of prolonging the agony (often literally) of dying?  I'm starting to think that spending everything on enjoying life while I can and only saving a few hundred pounts for a one-way ticket to Switzerland might be a reasonable late-life 'care' option!

 

I've long been of the view that I'm only going to have what savings I require for myself and my house (eg to have some money to one side in case my house needed a new roof or my body needed medical treatment the NHS refused to provide). Beyond that - I certainly won't even try to have "care home savings" - as I have no intention of ever going in a care home. I've also long since decided that, if ever I became seriously ill (or when I see a 90th birthday looming) then I will kill myself at that point. The law change to make voluntary euthanasia legal in this country is now pretty near I estimate and I would be very surprised if it isn't in law within the next 5 years.

Re your option - ie a one-way trip to Switzerland, then I believe the cost is £10,000 (not the few hundred £s I blithely assumed it would be as well). That is very expensive and does sound like someone somewhere wishes to make a profit from this (rather than making a fair/reasonable charge) and so, for anyone that wouldnt take the DIY route and thinks the law might not change in time for them = you need £10,000 savings for that purpose just in case.

Wow - £10k - I certainly wasn't expecting that.  That seems like very cynical profiteering!

It's a not for profit members' society, not a private company with shareholders.  Given the legal process, drugs, separate assessments and all the other things that are required, the cost isn't surprising.

Anyone thinking they'll get that for a few hundred is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Keep_pedalling

Mickey666 said:

"Is there a recommended amount to keep in savings? I would think the vast majority of people wouldn't have adequate savings. "

I don't know about a recommended amount to keep in savings for possibel care coss, but since fees can easily be upwards of £40k per year I reckon it would have to be into 5-figures, depending on how long you think care might be needed - which of course is really anyone's guess.  I think you're right about the vast majority of people not having adequate savings!

This whole thing raises many issues around how we should responsibly plan our lives.  £100k+ is a lot of money to put to one side (even if that's possible) to 'self-insure' against possible future care home costs, especially when not spending that money while fit and healthy must significantly reduce one's lifestyle.  Is this really a good way to live?

As you already have a joint estate exceeding £1M that is something you won’t really have to worry about. We are in a similar situation, and care costs have been built into are long term financial planning.

The house covers one of us, so savings to cover 3 years of residential / live in careers is built into the plan, which at today’s money requires £180k based on pension income meeting some of the cost. 

MoneySeeker1

onomatopoeia99 said:

Mickey666 said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

Mickey666 said:

"Is there a recommended amount to keep in savings? I would think the vast majority of people wouldn't have adequate savings. "

I don't know about a recommended amount to keep in savings for possibel care coss, but since fees can easily be upwards of £40k per year I reckon it would have to be into 5-figures, depending on how long you think care might be needed - which of course is really anyone's guess.  I think you're right about the vast majority of people not having adequate savings!

This whole thing raises many issues around how we should responsibly plan our lives.  £100k+ is a lot of money to put to one side (even if that's possible) to 'self-insure' against possible future care home costs, especially when not spending that money while fit and healthy must significantly reduce one's lifestyle.  Is this really a good way to live?

I'm increasingly of the opinion that denying people the right to assisted suicide towards the end of their lives is a very bad thing, especially for fully cognitive people with untreatable terminal illnesses.  What is the point of prolonging the agony (often literally) of dying?  I'm starting to think that spending everything on enjoying life while I can and only saving a few hundred pounts for a one-way ticket to Switzerland might be a reasonable late-life 'care' option!

 

I've long been of the view that I'm only going to have what savings I require for myself and my house (eg to have some money to one side in case my house needed a new roof or my body needed medical treatment the NHS refused to provide). Beyond that - I certainly won't even try to have "care home savings" - as I have no intention of ever going in a care home. I've also long since decided that, if ever I became seriously ill (or when I see a 90th birthday looming) then I will kill myself at that point. The law change to make voluntary euthanasia legal in this country is now pretty near I estimate and I would be very surprised if it isn't in law within the next 5 years.

Re your option - ie a one-way trip to Switzerland, then I believe the cost is £10,000 (not the few hundred £s I blithely assumed it would be as well). That is very expensive and does sound like someone somewhere wishes to make a profit from this (rather than making a fair/reasonable charge) and so, for anyone that wouldnt take the DIY route and thinks the law might not change in time for them = you need £10,000 savings for that purpose just in case.

Wow - £10k - I certainly wasn't expecting that.  That seems like very cynical profiteering!

It's a not for profit members' society, not a private company with shareholders.  Given the legal process, drugs, separate assessments and all the other things that are required, the cost isn't surprising.

Anyone thinking they'll get that for a few hundred is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I think the law will change soon - because I gather one of the main medical bodies has now withdrawn opposition to it and it looks as if the main doctors' association might soon do so. The MP's will probably basically vote as they think the medical profession wants and that is why I am optimistic. Though it doesnt matter to me personally, as I would just "take things into my own hands" for myself if it ever came to it. But I do feel sorry for those that wouldnt do so and would be reliant on Society to help them in this respect. 

I can see there would be a noticeable level of costs involved for these Swiss organisations (believe there are now two of them??) and hence a "few hundred £s" is optimistic - but I still feel £10,000 is excessive and think they would help themselves if they gave "full disclosure" and, unless and until they do, there will be suspicions why it's so high. 

I do tend to think cynically that they know there will be quite a few people that can pay for it - even if they don't have the savings to do so. This is where single people, for once, would be in a better financial position than married/otherwise coupled-up people as we would be free to take out a loan (if we are a home-owner) and know that the fact we wouldn't be around to pay it off didn't matter - as the balance of it would be repaid from the sale of our house. But a married person would know their "other half" still needed their house to live in and couldn't do that.

3stones

Mickey666 said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

Mickey666 said:

"Is there a recommended amount to keep in savings? I would think the vast majority of people wouldn't have adequate savings. "

I don't know about a recommended amount to keep in savings for possibel care coss, but since fees can easily be upwards of £40k per year I reckon it would have to be into 5-figures, depending on how long you think care might be needed - which of course is really anyone's guess.  I think you're right about the vast majority of people not having adequate savings!

This whole thing raises many issues around how we should responsibly plan our lives.  £100k+ is a lot of money to put to one side (even if that's possible) to 'self-insure' against possible future care home costs, especially when not spending that money while fit and healthy must significantly reduce one's lifestyle.  Is this really a good way to live?

I'm increasingly of the opinion that denying people the right to assisted suicide towards the end of their lives is a very bad thing, especially for fully cognitive people with untreatable terminal illnesses.  What is the point of prolonging the agony (often literally) of dying?  I'm starting to think that spending everything on enjoying life while I can and only saving a few hundred pounts for a one-way ticket to Switzerland might be a reasonable late-life 'care' option!

 

I've long been of the view that I'm only going to have what savings I require for myself and my house (eg to have some money to one side in case my house needed a new roof or my body needed medical treatment the NHS refused to provide). Beyond that - I certainly won't even try to have "care home savings" - as I have no intention of ever going in a care home. I've also long since decided that, if ever I became seriously ill (or when I see a 90th birthday looming) then I will kill myself at that point. The law change to make voluntary euthanasia legal in this country is now pretty near I estimate and I would be very surprised if it isn't in law within the next 5 years.

Re your option - ie a one-way trip to Switzerland, then I believe the cost is £10,000 (not the few hundred £s I blithely assumed it would be as well). That is very expensive and does sound like someone somewhere wishes to make a profit from this (rather than making a fair/reasonable charge) and so, for anyone that wouldnt take the DIY route and thinks the law might not change in time for them = you need £10,000 savings for that purpose just in case.

Wow - £10k - I certainly wasn't expecting that.  That seems like very cynical profiteering!

As for voluntary euthanasia being made legal in UK within five years, I really hope you're right but I'm not optimistic.  

Fair price all things considered although If they ever did allow it over here no doubt the government would add VAT on to it.