Is Labour Prosecuting A Class War?
News0 min ago
Avoiding Care Charges
162 Answers
If I owned my own house and have money in the bank what is the best way to avoid charges if I were to go into a home
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lisdar. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Pixie....my mother was moved to a nursing home from a care home because she needed more......looking after I suppose.....more than a care home could provide in the eyes of those who make these decisions...
But...because she has dementia she is not classed as needing nursing care...despite the care home not being able to provide the care she needed....that had to be provided by a nursing home.....
Now, if they moved her to a nursing home because that is the level of care she needs she should be classed as needing the same level of care as those who are getting their fees paid....
I repeat.....I'm not saying this because I hoped for an inheritance....I never have.....I'm saying it because is isn't fair....x
But...because she has dementia she is not classed as needing nursing care...despite the care home not being able to provide the care she needed....that had to be provided by a nursing home.....
Now, if they moved her to a nursing home because that is the level of care she needs she should be classed as needing the same level of care as those who are getting their fees paid....
I repeat.....I'm not saying this because I hoped for an inheritance....I never have.....I'm saying it because is isn't fair....x
Makes no sense at all, Pixie.......we were told that my mother needed the attention of nurses now....so we had to find another home that we were happy with....no help from SS there....
We did....but at each assessment we're told...sorry she doesn't need the help of nurses so you need to keep paying....
I'm not fussed about it....but it could make a big difference to the lives of some.....and most of all....it's not fair!
And I like fair..... :-)
We did....but at each assessment we're told...sorry she doesn't need the help of nurses so you need to keep paying....
I'm not fussed about it....but it could make a big difference to the lives of some.....and most of all....it's not fair!
And I like fair..... :-)
So do I! It rarely happens though... did the care home have a dementia unit? We weren't allowed to turn anyone away that was assessed with dementia needs- because if we couldn't cope, then another home wouldn't either. They only got moved if they genuinely needed a nursing unit- which was very rare. It sounds like the fault of the care home? X
te point is that the NHS will already be paying for the registered nurse nursing care she receives in the nursing home (as it pays the same for all people - district nurses in residential homes and the registered nursing element in nursing homes) Then the rest (the social care element and "hotel" element which makes up the majority of the provided care) is means tested
Not really, Pixie...she was in the locked part to prevent wandering..it was a lovely home but I think they preferred more active folk who would take part in bingo and singalongs....she was just curled in bed......
Anyway...the home I found is lovely.....she just moved and curled up in bed again.....thought the transport was cocked up...never arrived.... and they had to wheel her through town in the rain which confused her even more.......... :-)
Anyway...the home I found is lovely.....she just moved and curled up in bed again.....thought the transport was cocked up...never arrived.... and they had to wheel her through town in the rain which confused her even more.......... :-)
-- answer removed --
The simplest strategy is . . . if you can predict the date you will need to go into care, then you can sell the house and spend all the money so that you arrive at "check in" with £0.00.
As you can probably tell . . . there is a big IF in this approach - but if your calculations are accurate then there are 000's who would be prepared to "buy" the formula from you.
As you can probably tell . . . there is a big IF in this approach - but if your calculations are accurate then there are 000's who would be prepared to "buy" the formula from you.
I regard all governments as simply being service providers and the price for the services is taxation (whatever the tax is called). With the notable exception of education, neither the citizen or the government knows which needs any individual will present through life until the need arises, hence taxation is firstly levied equally on everyone but then adjusted due to it being used as a wealth distribution tool to bring about more equality - so now people are taxed at different rates. But at this point in the reckoning, nobody is marked as someone who will get more or less service at some point in the future. Then in comes the argument that the mark of a society is how well it looks after its weakest, the morality issue, so now those identified with greater need receive greater consideration.
It seems to me that either a government makes service X available to all or else it decides not to and gives the reason why. On this one (care for the elderly) it appears it is in effect saying that morality has shifted provision of this service onto fewer people but that financing it will be concentrated more toward those who now will not be getting it.
Fewer people being provided for should mean less cost unless either the quality is to be stepped up or else the unit price will be increased (more for those who provide it).
It will be interesting how this plays out in the end. Call it cynical but the suspicion may arise that so far as total effort is concerned, the amount of effort at the government's expense is more likely to be reduced - indeed that is really the aim anyway. There is no suggestion that total taxation is to be reduced. Then, because of the added layer, this will be yet another example of how the measures (monitoring, enforcement, verification of countless regulations, etc.) turn out primarily to be effective in creating jobs for which the public at large pay for, on top of taxation being levied. I am told, by people who can be expected to know, that the UK is prime candidate for the championship for complicated, cumbersome and ineffective/wasteful systems (not least taxation).
It seems to me that either a government makes service X available to all or else it decides not to and gives the reason why. On this one (care for the elderly) it appears it is in effect saying that morality has shifted provision of this service onto fewer people but that financing it will be concentrated more toward those who now will not be getting it.
Fewer people being provided for should mean less cost unless either the quality is to be stepped up or else the unit price will be increased (more for those who provide it).
It will be interesting how this plays out in the end. Call it cynical but the suspicion may arise that so far as total effort is concerned, the amount of effort at the government's expense is more likely to be reduced - indeed that is really the aim anyway. There is no suggestion that total taxation is to be reduced. Then, because of the added layer, this will be yet another example of how the measures (monitoring, enforcement, verification of countless regulations, etc.) turn out primarily to be effective in creating jobs for which the public at large pay for, on top of taxation being levied. I am told, by people who can be expected to know, that the UK is prime candidate for the championship for complicated, cumbersome and ineffective/wasteful systems (not least taxation).
"most respected members of society and families think of it as a duty to look after the elder family members even if it means a lot of 'sacrifices' to achieve it. '' Why do English people do this to their grandparents?"
Perhaps because we have a greater belief in community and feel it is unfair that one family might find great hardship whilst another has none. Better by far to pool the community's resources to ensure all contribute the the needs of the elderly, and none have all the stress put on their shoulders. We should ask why other countries have a, "begger you Jack, I'm alright", attitude to the elderly's physical and mental health issues.
Perhaps because we have a greater belief in community and feel it is unfair that one family might find great hardship whilst another has none. Better by far to pool the community's resources to ensure all contribute the the needs of the elderly, and none have all the stress put on their shoulders. We should ask why other countries have a, "begger you Jack, I'm alright", attitude to the elderly's physical and mental health issues.
Divebuddy.....I was so stunned that we were in agreement I had to have a second glass of red....if I'm tipsy later it's your fault!....
No you can't just accept...this is the way it is so suck it up.....this is really important and we have to have a fair to all system..
Yes, we will pay....everybody should pay for care....but when I see the lady in the next room getting the same as my Mum without having to sell her house as my Mum did.....well the system needs changing....x
No you can't just accept...this is the way it is so suck it up.....this is really important and we have to have a fair to all system..
Yes, we will pay....everybody should pay for care....but when I see the lady in the next room getting the same as my Mum without having to sell her house as my Mum did.....well the system needs changing....x
I don’t quite know whether Mrs May’s administration has thought through the “ownership through joint tenancy” conundrum. If a couple owns a house as joint tenants neither of them owns a discrete portion of the equity. It is the partnership that owns the house (which, as a by-product, means that neither partner can leave “half” the house to anybody else in their will). If partner “A” has to go into care and subsequently dies the house automatically reverts to the sole ownership of the surviving partner “B”. There is no way around this. The State has no call on partner B’s assets (as he or she did not require care) so it will be unable to recover care costs via the value of the house.
The vast majority of couples – especially those who are married – own their property as joint tenants. I believe the value of their property cannot be up for grabs should the first joint owner to die be the one who needs care.
“…but what do you say to someone like me who has worked their entire life from age 17 to 65 but never been anywhere near able to afford to buy a house and is now on Pension credit . If I need care there is no possible way I can pay .”
Quite understandably you should get support Eddie. But why should you qualify when somebody who has paid (say) higher rate tax and NI all their lives does not. It depends entirely on one’s philosophy: mine is that those people who have made the greatest contributions are entitled to the greatest benefits; a more Socialist approach is that those who have paid the most in have done so simply to support those who have paid the least.
“... why is paying for care different to paying for any other service you need?”
It isn’t, db. But if a service is to be provide (and funded) by the State it should be provided for all (especially those who have made the greatest contributions).
The vast majority of couples – especially those who are married – own their property as joint tenants. I believe the value of their property cannot be up for grabs should the first joint owner to die be the one who needs care.
“…but what do you say to someone like me who has worked their entire life from age 17 to 65 but never been anywhere near able to afford to buy a house and is now on Pension credit . If I need care there is no possible way I can pay .”
Quite understandably you should get support Eddie. But why should you qualify when somebody who has paid (say) higher rate tax and NI all their lives does not. It depends entirely on one’s philosophy: mine is that those people who have made the greatest contributions are entitled to the greatest benefits; a more Socialist approach is that those who have paid the most in have done so simply to support those who have paid the least.
“... why is paying for care different to paying for any other service you need?”
It isn’t, db. But if a service is to be provide (and funded) by the State it should be provided for all (especially those who have made the greatest contributions).
Bednobs....I will probably have to pay for care....unless my next adventure holiday goes wrong....my kids are happy with that....as long as it's fair.....and just now it's not ...it's far from fair...
So many of us would, I think, try to find a way around it if we could....until it's fair for all....well I would, I know......x
So many of us would, I think, try to find a way around it if we could....until it's fair for all....well I would, I know......x
"...so it sounds like we are all pretty much agreed (except the OP) that it's not unfar to pay for care, just unfair that you don't have to."
Er..no. It's not unfair that you have to pay for care - provided everybody has to. If not, nobody should have to. Furthermore, why is dementia singled out? People with cancer will not have to pay; people with alcoholism will not have to pay. Why should those with dementia have to?
Er..no. It's not unfair that you have to pay for care - provided everybody has to. If not, nobody should have to. Furthermore, why is dementia singled out? People with cancer will not have to pay; people with alcoholism will not have to pay. Why should those with dementia have to?
NJ...the only answer we could get that it wasn't an illness...it was a condition that needed care....not nursing...
Like you I wondered why the funding for a dementia patient should differ from the funding for a cancer patient when the care they are receiving is the same...except perhaps for some medication....
The two people doing the assessment with me agreed....but rules are rules so we have to pay more....x
Like you I wondered why the funding for a dementia patient should differ from the funding for a cancer patient when the care they are receiving is the same...except perhaps for some medication....
The two people doing the assessment with me agreed....but rules are rules so we have to pay more....x
