Care Home fees.

lisyloo wrote: »

I'd say quite a lot.

The state does not provide women with a state pension until 67.
When I started working this was 60.
For many below median wage this will mean they cannot retire until state pension age. - And? That's their own fault



It might not apply in this particular case, but in many cases the state does expect family to do caring duties and other tasks.
Even if your loved one is in a nursing home it's rare that they will take them to an optician or for a hearing test or to get false teeth or to go clothes shopping. - indeed, but again that's not the state's responsibility.
Family are expected to do these things.
You maybe correct in saying the state provided the bare minimum to keep people alive and in a hygienic state. - indeed.



Most people need to earn a living. - indeed, but no-one forces them to
The age when people retire has done up especially for women.- yes, equality tends to do that
I'm not saying that's wrong in fact I agree with it.
Just pointing out that they can't be expecting to work full time AND care as well. - no they cant be, but that's down to individual choices, not the state


If you want to claim benefits e.g. JSA, then I think you'd find the "state" would be expecting you to work and you'll face sanctions if you don't.

lisyloo wrote: »

Hm....I though I was in danger of being unsympathetic but you take the biscuit :-) - haha, it's not that i'm unsympathetic, I just don't think that the state is responsible for fixing everyone's mistakes.
What about a woman that's been abandoned? - you mean to raise children? No I think child benefit etc is perfectly reasonable; it's a state investment into a childs potential. Is that her fault? - maybe? Depends on what actually happened.
What if she left scholl at 14 in 1941 and didn't have a great education? - if we're going to be anecdotal, my grandfather went to work aged 8 on the railway in soviet Russia so his sister could go to school. He was a very successful physics professor at the Top university in Moscow, and wrote a number of books... Sill her fault? - again it depends on the circumstances.
What if she was raped? - in what context? Does that mean she is unable to have a very decent life?


I could go on but I don't think most sensible people think it's someone's fault if they need to earn a living. - Im really sorry I don't understand?











ok, but would you agree that the state service - where people might be unable to see, hear, bute or chew is the absolute minmum to keep people alive and not something to be proud of? - I think you're being quite specific, so i'll broaden it. I think the fact the state provides a service; typically based upon individual needs is very good. Where do we draw the line of responsibility though? So many conditions are preventable, granted as we get older it's less so. But at what stage would you draw the line?





Well we don't hold a gun up to people's head if you are scoring points, but clearly people need to work to live. - yes that's my point. That's not the state forcing anyone to work. That's ones own need for self preservation.





If you want to score point, then yes you are right. - im not trying to score points; to be frank it's quite rude of you to say that. I have a different opinion to yours. Im not belittling yours as 'point scoring', I'd really appreciate it if you paid be the same courtesy.
For example mu SIL chooses to keep a roof over her and her son's head rathrt than give up her job to care for her mother (and the lose the house when she doesn't pay the mortgage). Not sure how she's do the caring once the house has been repossesed. - indeed. But is that anyone's fault? Or is that life?
I think most sensible people understand that it's not a realistic choice to lose the roof over your head and become intentionally homeless, even if you want to score points on saying it's a choice. - it is a choice. For example she could choose to move the mum into her own home? She could choose a different job? She could choose (and yes it's a legitimate choice) to prioritise the needs of her child over her mothers. It's not a nice choice, and I wouldn't like to make it. But I still don't see how the state is at fault in any way?




If we are scoring points, there are some innate instincts we have e.g. survival that FORCE us to try to eat. - indeed. But that's not the debate (infact that's my point entirely). If you want to be paid by the state to search for work, you must search for work. If you have been lucky or successful and have money in the bank, you don't.


Most sensible people will know that some choices are not realistic and not in normal parlance therefore considered choices e.g. making yourself intentioanlly homeles if you have children (unless you are for some reason trying to score points).

lisyloo wrote: »

Sure, maybe I got you all wrong, for which I apologise.

Appreciate that, thank you



I would expect people to pay for their own care (this is not in my interest).
My MIL had care paid for by taxpaters and her home was disregarded.
I think a bill should have been put against the home.
But I wouldn't say it's her fault that she's llived til 90 with dimensia. She's never smoked or drank etc. - no ofcourse not, but it's not mine, or yours or anyone else's. perhaps 'fault' is the wrong word for this context, as it has negative connotations. I cant think of a better one though?





Not physically possible in this case. - sure, and I'm just throwing out examples.
MIL could not use a stair lift because she cannot bend her knees back (arthritis for 50 years - which I would not say is her fault). - again no, but it's life. we aren't all the same.
House is literally too small. - ye fair enough, I try not to go into individual cases when we are discussing large scale policies. The reason is we are all individual with our own experiences and realities.






Only within the limits of her qualifications/abillity/location/age.
I don't think there are better options out there for her at 58 (and yes age does come into it). - yes it does, Presumably your child is on the way to adulthood too though. Again in the grand scheme: People need to choose whether relocating for better employment, studying for extra qualifications or whatnot is the right decision for their preferred outcomes.

None of us (ncluding the staff) think it's realistic to look after someone 24/7 when they are very physically and emotionally demanding.
The staff work hard but are emotionally detached.
My MIL can be quite vile e.g. accusatory and it's quite difficult to just let that go over your head if your emotionally attached (apart from the fact that the finance, physical space doesn't work). - ofcourse and that's totally understandable. Which is often why having external support is preferred.


Im grateful for your suggestions, but do you not think if there was a simply answer like just changing job or getting a stair lift that it would be done if it was that easy? - ofcourse, and my suggestions are more observations on a grand scale, not individual. My point is that everyone has a story.




Actually I (and we as a family) are very grateful for the free care at home, hospital and nursing care we've received. I wasn't saying the state is at fault at all. In fact I believe people should pay more personally and be less tax payer funded (that to my personal detriment with loss of inheritance so no vested interest). - agreed.



My point was that if state pension age goes up for women (quite rightly IMO) we (the state and society as a whole) can't expect them to be 24/7 carers also which they would have been in the past at a time when women didn't commonly work. - ah I see. I look at state and society as two separate entities. Well one entity and one intangible mess. There does seem to be some pressure from 'society' (I don't like the term, we aren't unified in any way) for women to be carers. But personally I have no issue with it. Women tend to be more empathetic and person focused than men. (that's not a bad thing!)

Comms69 wrote: »

Quote:
And? That's their own fault