How to minimise Social Care costs?

Pollycat

onomatopoeia99 said:

Pollycat said:

I really don't see why people think other people should fund their or their family members care.

You can extend that argument to other things, for example "I don't see why other people should fund your healthcare."

It's about shared risk.  We all pay for the NHS through taxes and it's there for all of us whether we need it or not, the risk is pooled.  If we stay in hospital we don't get charged thousands a week for nursing care.

For some reason some people think that social care is different and the risk should not be shared. There seem to be plenty of voiciferous people on this board that think social care should not be part of the "cradle to grave" welfare state and by implication it should be redefined "cradle to dementia".

Why is social care different to healthcare?

Over my 33 years of paying tax and NI, I've paid more than my fair share.
I've not used schools, rarely used hospitals. 

Health care is different to social care because a lot of people pay towards it from the day they start work.

Keep_pedalling

kuepper said:

Social care was free until the 1980s and that forms part of my mindset of not wanting to pay for it now as it was political dogma that stopped it being free. Wanting to save hard to maximise the money I leave for my family is no different to me to ppl saying they worked hard to pay for private education etc.

Back then there were actually few in care, more people were looked after by family. The sort of care people want now ( their own room, preferably on suite) was not the norm, things had only just about improved from the work house days (many of the early care homes were actually in old workhouse buildings) like the state pension social care offered by LAs is a safety net, as a nation we can easily afford to provide such a safety net, but how many of us are willing to put up with a absolute basic provision?

From the experience I had with my mother (council tenant with very low savings) I know that you have to become pretty decrepit before you can get past the financial approval hurdle, and although she was happy in the care home she went too and the staff were great, it fell well below what I would want if I ended up in care, so am more than happy to be in a situation that we have the funds to hire a live in career if required or to choose any care facility that meets our wants.

thorsoak

I'm attempting to minimise any social care costs that I may incur in later life - I am now 78, living in the 3-bedroom bungalow that my dear OH and I moved into some 13 years ago as our "last forever home".   However sadly he only enjoyed 3 years before succumbing to pancreatic cancer and since then I have lived here mostly on my own - though at the moment #3 son is living here, with his 3 year old twins here every other weekend.  
What I am doing is to try to ensure that I can stay here for as long as possible so it is important to keep upgrading - I've changed the bathroom into a wet room (with door opening outwards), I'm planning changes to the kitchen which will mean no bending down to the oven, more cupboard space at mid level - and a pull-out work surface.   I've got Alexa dot thingies in the lounge, kitchen and bedroom - which mean that, if necessary, I should be able to summon help from here there and everywhere.   At the moment, I'm fine (well apart from a chest infection, thanks to the little germ factories) but I keep thinking about the "what ifs".
The garden is being kept under control at the moment thanks to #3 son, and the housewor too - but if necessary, I will somehow manage to pay for a cleaner and gardener - the family have said that they will contribute in one way or another if needs be.
Hopefully, I will be able to stay here for as long as I possibly can.

Mojisola

Keep_pedalling said:

kuepper said:

Social care was free until the 1980s and that forms part of my mindset of not wanting to pay for it now as it was political dogma that stopped it being free. Wanting to save hard to maximise the money I leave for my family is no different to me to ppl saying they worked hard to pay for private education etc.

Back then there were actually few in care, more people were looked after by family. The sort of care people want now ( their own room, preferably on suite) was not the norm, things had only just about improved from the work house days (many of the early care homes were actually in old workhouse buildings) like the state pension social care offered by LAs is a safety net, as a nation we can easily afford to provide such a safety net, but how many of us are willing to put up with a absolute basic provision?

I was going to make this point - I used to visit an elderly relative who had dementia back in the late '70s. 

She was in an NHS facility - basically, there was a ward of beds with no privacy beyond the usual curtains, one narrow wardrobe each for all their clothes and personal possessions and a day room where the residents spent all their days.

Her pension went towards the costs so it still wasn't free as such.

She was well-cared for by the staff but I don't think many of us would want to spend our last days living communally like that.

Gavin83

onomatopoeia99 said:

Pollycat said:

I really don't see why people think other people should fund their or their family members care.

You can extend that argument to other things, for example "I don't see why other people should fund your healthcare."

It's about shared risk.  We all pay for the NHS through taxes and it's there for all of us whether we need it or not, the risk is pooled.  If we stay in hospital we don't get charged thousands a week for nursing care.

For some reason some people think that social care is different and the risk should not be shared. There seem to be plenty of voiciferous people on this board that think social care should not be part of the "cradle to grave" welfare state and by implication it should be redefined "cradle to dementia".

Why is social care different to healthcare?

Let's say people did get charged thousands a week for hospital care and similar amounts for the procedures themselves. How would you propose most people would be able to afford this? Either the financial criteria would have to be set extremely high, which probably wouldn't change much as such people will likely pay for private healthcare now, people will have to sell their homes and become homeless to fund their medical care or alternative go without and die.

This doesn't apply for residential/nursing care. A person going into a care home is extremely unlikely to be leaving and therefore if their house gets sold it really doesn't matter from their perspective, they'll still be housed and fed. Care home residents don't have to make the choice between a life saving/enhancing procedure or being homeless.

The only people who'll lose out is their kids through inheritance. It's extremely questionable whether they deserve this and of course the elephant in the room is they can still inherit if they want to, they just need to provide the care themselves.

I find the whole complaints against care home charging a strange argument. It's probably the only thing in this country where people argue that the better off should benefit at the cost of the poor(er). People seem to argue for total inequality here.

Maybe they should scrap care home funding entirely. That'll make it more fair.

Malthusian

kuepper said:

Social care was free until the 1980s and that forms part of my mindset of not wanting to pay for it now as it was political dogma that stopped it being free.

Piling on, but as others have said, in the 1980s state care provision was only just emerging from the workhouse era. Most people who would be in a care home today were cared for by relatives / partners who managed as best they could. There was a huge stigma if you left your relatives to rot in what was basically an asylum.

Making women look after their elderly relatives (because let's get real here) is very far from "free". It has a massive opportunity cost as caring responsibilities keep them from working, volunteering or enjoying their own lives; it is stressful and bad for their health. This is of course still a real problem due to the number of people who still care for relatives because they're distrustful of the care system (often rightly). Just not as big a problem as in the 1980s when we didn't care as much (pun not intended). In the 1980s society could still get away with "whatever, her kids are grown up so she can look after her parents / mother-in-law instead", less so now.

maman

I understand the points made about inheritance and those that can pay should pay but....

There will always be exceptions but the majority of people who are reaching old age now have had a very different life experience from those before them who were affected by two world wars and the depression of the 1930s.

I think the 'gripe' is that many of the people who have property or savings have worked hard and made sacrifices to be in that position. Others have similarly lived through a time of relative plenty and availabile employment but spent all their disposable income on cars, holidays and general high life while the former were paying mortgages and saving into a pension.

I can give examples of people I know who are living in very comfortable social housing, paying a peppercorn rent with pension credit and other benefits just because they chose not to make provision for their later years. I know if they go into care homes, they may not be the most luxurious but the rest of us are potentially paying twice. First for our own care and then through tax for everyone else. 

Malthusian

The fundamental issue is that we are ruled by the generation - Generation X - that was the last generation to grow up when it was the norm for elderly relatives to be cared for within the family. If you grew up in the 80s it is probable that you either had direct experience of having a grandparent living with you when they were "a bit doolally" or you knew others who did.

Consequently Generation X doesn't want to pay for social care because when they were growing up it was "free" (i.e. their parents did it) but they don't want to do it themselves either (as gender equality, increasing wealth and increasing individual freedom released them from that expectation).

Keep_pedalling

maman said:

I understand the points made about inheritance and those that can pay should pay but....

There will always be exceptions but the majority of people who are reaching old age now have had a very different life experience from those before them who were affected by two world wars and the depression of the 1930s.

I think the 'gripe' is that many of the people who have property or savings have worked hard and made sacrifices to be in that position. Others have similarly lived through a time of relative plenty and availabile employment but spent all their disposable income on cars, holidays and general high life while the former were paying mortgages and saving into a pension.

I can give examples of people I know who are living in very comfortable social housing, paying a peppercorn rent with pension credit and other benefits just because they chose not to make provision for their later years. I know if they go into care homes, they may not be the most luxurious but the rest of us are potentially paying twice. First for our own care and then through tax for everyone else. 

That gripe is in the main is a false one. Most older people owning valuable homes do so not because of hard work, but because the bought cheap affordable housing that has since rocketed in value, many of those ( and I include myself here) have also benefited from inheritances. Most LA funded people in care have not frittered away their wealth because they never had it in the first place. My mother was LA funded and like many women of her generation she raised a family and did not work, she was also widowed in her late 50s. Most of her fellow residence were from similar backgrounds 90% were women who spent few years in paid employment.

Now we have millions on minimum wages without much in the way of a decent pension scheme. When those people hit the care system the issue is going to be far greater.

maman

I don't know which generation you represent @Keep_pedalling but I was referring to the generation who are approaching old age now. Since 1944 the education system changed and far more women are well educated and worked and contributed to family finances. House prices may have been relatively cheap but mortgage interest rates have at times been astronomical compared with today.

I agree about the current generation of young people. Perhaps that's one of reasons that people want to keep some of their assets to pass on. 🤔