Surprise, surprise!

[Deleted member 33931]

This is the exact situation I'm in at the moment, my sister and bother want my mum to put her house in trust to safeguard it from being used to pay for her care should she need it, (shes 78) I'm of the opinion that if the house pays for a better level of care for her then it should be used to do so.
Not sure what's best long term at the mo to be honest.

Well done, Phil - that is very ethical of you.

Another way to look at this issue is to ask "If this person owns a home and therefore has, in theory, enough money to pay for their own care, why should everyone else pay for their care just so that their offspring can get a pile of cash that they actually have no moral entitlement to?!"

Whenever anyone starts up this kind of conversation with me, showing their frustration at not getting free care for their parents when they own a home, I give them a baleful stare; "Hmm, so you want me and everyone else to pay for your parent's care so you can pocket some cash?" (I don't actually say that out loud, of course... )

Every time someone tries to get around this 'paying for their own care' malarkey, what they are actually saying is "I want the tax payer to pay for my care - so that my kids can get something they haven't actually worked for".

In your situation, Phil - which is similar to what I'll have pretty soon - there is, to me, a simple choice; (a) they use all their assets to pay for the best care available for them (it's their life, it's their assets, let them use it for what it's morally intended) or (b) take the parent(s) in to your own home and look after them - in which case you have earned some entitlement to these assets. Ie - you are effectively being paid to look after them.

If any sibling isn't prepared to look after their parents (and I fully understand why many won't want to - and that's absolutely fine) then they also have ZERO entitlement to the assets that would be used to provide for good care.

(I'm keeping an eye out for a house that has 'dual-occupancy' potential, and living areas that are as far away from each other as possible... )

 

[Phil the Paver]

Well done, Phil - that is very ethical of you.

Another way to look at this issue is to ask "If this person owns a home and therefore has, in theory, enough money to pay for their own care, why should everyone else pay for their care just so that their offspring can get a pile of cash that they actually have no moral entitlement to?!"

Whenever anyone starts up this kind of conversation with me, showing their frustration at not getting free care for their parents when they own a home, I give them a baleful stare; "Hmm, so you want me and everyone else to pay for your parent's care so you can pocket some cash?" (I don't actually say that out loud, of course... )

Every time someone tries to get around this 'paying for their own care' malarkey, what they are actually saying is "I want the tax payer to pay for my care - so that my kids can get something they haven't actually worked for".

In your situation, Phil - which is similar to what I'll have pretty soon - there is, to me, a simple choice; (a) they use all their assets to pay for the best care available for them (it's their life, it's their assets, let them use it for what it's morally intended) or (b) take the parent(s) in to your own home and look after them - in which case you have earned some entitlement to these assets. Ie - you are effectively being paid to look after them.

If any sibling isn't prepared to look after their parents (and I fully understand why many won't want to - and that's absolutely fine) then they also have ZERO entitlement to the assets that would be used to provide for good care.

(I'm keeping an eye out for a house that has 'dual-occupancy' potential, and living areas that are as far away from each other as possible... )

My wife actually said, " if it comes to it, she'll come and live here whether your sister and bother like it or not." who am I to argue.

 

[Deleted member 164349]

That's what's playing on my mind, the fact that those that bum they way through life get looked after and those that work hard have to pay for it.
My mum still works a 4.5 day week selfemployed at 78 though she first to admit that if she retired she would just sit at home and waste away.

I think the pertinent question really is,

Why are care homes run for profit. And there are good arguments for both sides.

Should you have to sell your assets to pay for care, when the only real beneficiary is a business?

Why shouldn't you pay for care, somebody is doing that as employment. We complain about people who don't want to pay for work we do?

When you solve that basic conundrum, let me know.

 

[joinerjohn1]

There seems to be a general culture in this country - probably others too - of kids thinking they are entitled to an inheritance from their parents; the family home, the savings, any cash in the bank.

As soon as someone is approaching the time when they cannot take care of themselves, there's a flurry of phone calls to the council to see what care homes are available, and what methods can be employed to prevent the patient's assets being used to pay for it.

Bottom line is - your home and your savings and your pension and your assets - should pay for your comfortable end of life care.

Well said DA. We can agree on this at least. When my mum passed away in 1981, she left very little in the way of assets, had died intestate so , dad inherited what was left. Some years later he re-married. I was just happy that dad was happy, but some of the family were not too happy about it. They said "She would now inherit the house when dad died and we'll be left with nothing." My argument went along the lines of, "It's dad's house and when he shuffles off this mortal coil, you're not entitled to any share of the house." "Dad worked hard to buy the house in the first place , using his own money and earnings." "Tell me why you should get anything?"

Anyway, working in the hospital, on a ward where the vast majority of patients are discharged on to further care, (nursing home, care home, residential care etc) I see many instances of family using delaying tactics to keep their loved one within the NHS where the care is costing them nothing (apart from their NI and tax contributions) . Family delay important meetings with both hospital and social workers concerning their (supposed) loved ones. Some ask why can't mum/ dad , just go home and we'll look after them? (yep, that's exactly why they ended up in hospital in the bloody first place, because you were "looking" after them) Others wonder why their parents house has to be sold to pay for social care.
When I worked in a nursing home, we had one resident arrive from hospital. That afternoon, what I thought were concerned family arrived and were soon fussing over the woman. Within a few days they were questioning the need for her to be in nursing care. It eventually transpired that these people were not concerned relatives, but actually had LPA (Lasting Power of Attorney) over this woman. They were her next door neighbours. At a meeting with the manager, they claimed that the situation of her being in a nursing home was causing them financial difficulties (or as the chap put it, "This is costing me money") Our manager pointed out that the woman was in fact paying her own bills for the nursing care as the money was coming out of her bank account." "Yes" said the chap, "We've been left everything in her will, so this will cause us to be left with rather less than she has at the moment."
We reported the chap to the court of protection, but sadly the elderly woman died about a month later.

 

[joinerjohn1]

I think the pertinent question really is,

Why are care homes run for profit.

Should you have to sell your assets to pay for care, when the only real beneficiary is a business?

JoT , if you started a business, would you run it as a hobby or a living? (ahh I see, you want to run it as a charity?)

 

[Deleted member 164349]

JoT , if you started a business, would you run it as a hobby or a living? (ahh I see, you want to run it as a charity?)

Have the decency to point out the opposing question I asked?

Talk about selective arguments

 

[Deleted member 164349]

JoT , if you started a business, would you run it as a hobby or a living? (ahh I see, you want to run it as a charity?)

Dont forget that those business' take money from the overall pot. Some of which goes as profit, rather than use

 

[longboat]

There seems to be a general culture in this country - probably others too - of kids thinking they are entitled to an inheritance from their parents; the family home, the savings, any cash in the bank.

As soon as someone is approaching the time when they cannot take care of themselves, there's a flurry of phone calls to the council to see what care homes are available, and what methods can be employed to prevent the patient's assets being used to pay for it.

Bottom line is - your home and your savings and your pension and your assets - should pay for your comfortable end of life care.

I wouldn't put the blame squarely on the kids in many instances and I don't think it's the norm.
Many parents set the wheels in motion themselves during their retirement years as a way of guaranteeing that the fruits of their labour pass on to the people that they care about the most. Signing property over and giving large sums of money to their offspring as a means to avoid inheritance tax is common place and wholely justified imo.
The vast majority will always put 'family' first and society second.
Yeah, you will always get the greedy, selfish individuals who go to great lengths to obtain money, but I don't think they are the standard set up in any country, most people want the best for their parents and are prepared to sacrifice a hell of a lot (money wise) to provide it. Time on the other hand is often something they don't have as they have their own children to take care of.

I think, btiw's grandfather enjoyed an almost ideal life (or, end of life, to be more precise) the thought of being unable to care for myself and being wheeled in front of a TV for the rest of my day's doesn't bear thinking about and I hope I may also one day share his 'sod this' tenacity.
What a guy.

 

[fillyboy]

I must admit that I was always of the impression that care homes were a license to print money, but it seems there are an awful lot of care homes declining council business because
they're not paying enough.
Given that the workers are mainly minimum wage and zero hour contracts, I find that hard to compute.

 

[joinerjohn1]

JoT, you ask "Why are care homes run for profit?" Well you tell me,, Why would anyone want to run any business at a profit?

 

[Deleted member 164349]

JoT, you ask "Why are care homes run for profit?" Well you tell me,, Why would anyone want to run any business at a profit?

Have the decency to add my other question which you keep ignoring.

There are 2 very clear sides of this argument.

As like most things, it is not a simple yes or no.

Is it?

 

[joinerjohn1]

Oh No,, here we go again,, I'm starting ton suffer from De Javu .. You did start off by saying...

I think the pertinent question really is,

Then go on to ask not one ,but three questions.. Which question am I to choose Jack? I chose the very first question you asked, which was,, "Why are care homes run for profit?"

 

[Deleted member 164349]

Oh No,, here we go again,, I'm starting ton suffer from De Javu .. You did start off by saying...


Then go on to ask not one ,but three questions.. Which question am I to choose Jack? I chose the very first question you asked, which was,, "Why are care homes run for profit?"

And then there was an equally effective counter argument.

I also said, when you can answer the conundrum, let me know.

But oh no. You only see 1 side of my comments and assume thats my final answer.

The original question is pertinent.

What is the definitive answer?

Just possibly, there is no definitive answer, is there

 

[fillyboy]

Oh No,, here we go again,, I'm starting ton suffer from De Javu .. You did start off by saying...

Doh!, this is going to run for weeks JJ,.

 

[fillyboy]

See what I mean.

 

[joinerjohn1]

Should you have to sell your assets to pay for care, when the only real beneficiary is a business?

Fair question Jack, but before placing someone into a care home or nursing home setting, you can be sure professional healthcare workers have thoroughly assessed the care needs of the individual. Families can't always look after them as they have their own commitments, (work, mortgages , bills to pay etc) Families often don't realise the responsibilities they've taken on when looking after an elderly relative.. Do you reckon you could look after your dad/mum? What about if they become doubly incontinent? Do you fancy wiping their backsides? Do you really want to help your mum/dad bathe/ shower? Could you stay awake all night, just because they didn't go to sleep and were apt to wander about ? These are just a few of the things that relatives don't realise they're taking on.
People often ask me how I can do the job I do when they see for themselves the difficulties we encounter. I tell them it's easy. I clock off at the end of a shift and go home,,, whereas someone looking after a relative just doesn't get the chance to "go home" at the end of the day. Their day becomes 24/ 7 and believe me , that would be bloody tiring.

 

[Deleted member 164349]

See what I mean.

If people could see all sides of an argument.

And accept i posed 2 sensible answers to 1 pertinent question.

Then, and only then will you be able to form a BALANCED and JUSTIFIED position.

 

[Deleted member 164349]

Fair question Jack, but before placing someone into a care home or nursing home setting, you can be sure professional healthcare workers have thoroughly assessed the care needs of the individual. Families can't always look after them as they have their own commitments, (work, mortgages , bills to pay etc) Families often don't realise the responsibilities they've taken on when looking after an elderly relative.. Do you reckon you could look after your dad/mum? What about if they become doubly incontinent? Do you fancy wiping their backsides? Do you really want to help your mum/dad bathe/ shower? Could you stay awake all night, just because they didn't go to sleep and were apt to wander about ? These are just a few of the things that relatives don't realise they're taking on.
People often ask me how I can do the job I do when they see for themselves the difficulties we encounter. I tell them it's easy. I clock off at the end of a shift and go home,,, whereas someone looking after a relative just doesn't get the chance to "go home" at the end of the day. Their day becomes 24/ 7 and believe me , that would be bloody tiring.

I have seen my dad deteriate to a position where he had to end up in a nursing home.

I now have a frail mother that will almost certainly end up in a care home.

Dont try and lecture me about care and reasoning.

I see ALL sides of a very difficult to answer position

 

[fillyboy]

Should you have to sell your assets to pay for care, when the only real beneficiary is a business?

Actually , WE are the beneficiaries. The care home will be paid regardless. The sale of assets means less outlay for the council which ultimately means us, doesn't it?

 

[joinerjohn1]

And then there was an equally effective counter argument.

I also said, when you can answer the conundrum, let me know.

But oh no. You only see 1 side of my comments and assume thats my final answer.

The original question is pertinent.

What is the definitive answer?

Just possibly, there is no definitive answer, is there

Jack, your original first question was "Why are care homes run as a business?" Your following questions are irrelevant. There's no conundrum at all. If you get someone in to decorate your living room, chances are you're going to have to pay them. Get someone in to look after your mum/ dad, then you're going to have to pay. Farm them out to someone when you're no longer able to stand the pressure, you're going to have to pay, or at least someone's going to have to pay.