Protecting a house against long-term care money grab

seven-day-weekend

My b-i-l was wonderful when my sister was suffering from Alzheimers. In spite of the fact that he himself has Parkinsons and was 76 when she died, he looked after her with the help of his daughter until they physically could do no more. He was heartbroken when she had to go into care, in fact I think that was when he said goodbye to her and did his grieving. No-one could have shown more love in action than he did.

I'm glad to say that at the age of 79 he is 'emigrating' to the Orkney Islands to live in a Grandad flat on his daughter's farm that she moved to last year. As I live in southern Spain, I may never see him again. I'm glad he has a chance of some normal life.

Just wanted to pay tribute to a man who did his very very best for my sister.

EdInvestor

Errata wrote: »

The reason I consider dementia to be part of the normal ageing process is that it's something that affects older people, affects more as they age, rather like dodgy hips and dicky hearts - more commonly found in the old age population than the young.

Then again, only a minority of older people get Alzheimers/dementia.

It doesn't seem to me that it's part of "normal wear and tear."

margaretclare

In the future normal retirement age is going to be 68. My mother would never have been able to function in any job by that age, as by then she was in the first stages of dementia.

CAE, I am so sorry about your mother.

However, there are people who can continue working at a much later stage. I worked until age 67 myself, that was up to 2002, and so did DH. I've just been talking to a man who's active in local politics, the chairman of our local branch in fact, and he's 73. Lots of people who are active in all kinds of ways.

I don't think it's part of 'normal wear and tear in ageing' either. The fact that it is so perceived, however, hampers research into causes and ways of helping. People are just written off as 'needing care' and no one enquires why them and not others.

monkeyspanner

margaretclare wrote: »

However, as treliac points out, demographic changes over recent years have meant that many people are living to far older ages than was ever envisaged when the present system was set up in the 1940s. Retirement age was set at 65 because it was assumed you might live another 5 years and pension payment was to keep you out of the workhouse. Now, if someone survives to age 65 he or she has a good chance of living another 20 years or more.

Whilst life expectancy at birth in 1948 was:
Males 66.4 years
Females 71.2 years

The actual life expectancy at age 65 in 1948 was:
Males a further 12.8 years i.e. total 77.8 years
Females a further 15.3 years i.e. total 80.3 years
Source:Government Actuary's Department

Current life expectancy at age 65 (UK 2006 figures) is:
Males a further 16.9 years i.e. total 81.9 years
Females a further 19.7 years i.e. total 84.7 years
Source: Statistics Office

From those figures it can be deduced that in 1948 if you reached 65 you had a pretty good life expectancy of about 4 to 5 years less than current figures. The difference being that far fewer people reached 65 in 1948 due to high mortality rates at younger ages.

I am not sure how the actual retirement ages were decided in 1948 but it would not seem to be for the reasons Margaretclare suggests. If this were the case the women's retirement would have been set at an older age than men's as they live longer on average rather than 5 years younger.

It is also interesting to note that 60 years of medical treatment and medication advancements have only produced a 4 to 5 year improvement in life expectancy at age 65, and for much of those 4 to 5 years I would suspect the elderly have a pretty poor quality of life whatever their circumstances.

Errata

I am not sure how the actual retirement ages were decided in 1948 but it would not seem to be for the reasons Margaretclare suggests. If this were the case the women's retirement would have been set at an older age than men's as they live longer on average rather than 5 years younger.

In the 19th century when the small German states were brought together as the modern unified Germany, a welfare state was devised for it by Bismarck and his government and it set the retirement age at 65 for men.
The average life expectancy for men at that time was 67/68 years.

noh

Errata wrote: »

In the 19th century when the small German states were brought together as the modern unified Germany, a welfare state was devised for it by Bismarck and his government and it set the retirement age at 65 for men.
The average life expectancy for men at that time was 67/68 years.

The retirement age was set at 70 by Bismarck in 1889 it was reduced to 65 in 1916.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/age65.html

Nigel

Errata

Thanks Nigel, my Bismarck history took place nearly 50 years ago, so I'm surprised I remembered as much as I did !

CAE

Margaret Clare - Thank you for your comments. I don't normally go on so much about this because I find it too distressing, but I also feel very strongly about other peoples perceptions of the illness.

I completely agree that many people are able to work beyond state retirement age, which will be 68 in the future. I think this does emphasise that dementia is indeed an illness, as if we are to be expected to work to that age under normal circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect to be healthy enough to be able to work.

It is amazing how this thread has changed direction. I can't quite believe we are now talking about a retirement age set in Geemany by Bismarck in 1899!! :rotfl:

EdInvestor

The Alzheimers Society is quite clear about this issue:

http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents.php?categoryID=200265

The majority of people with dementia pay for some or all of the costs of care because it is provided by care staff from social services which is means tested unlike NHS care. If doctors or nurses provided this care it would be free of charge. People with dementia have a physical disease of the brain. It is wrong that they are unfairly charged for essential care that is the result of a medical condition.

Dementia sufferers account for two thirds of the residents of care homes.

baby_boomer

I'm with you Ed.

But any future UK government (Labour or Conservative), with a burgeoning baby_boomer population and an ever rising tax take is not going to listen unless the pensioners get properly organised.