Care homes - why do people still not know this?

[willman]

I think your maths is right, and it's not as much as my head worked out (your maths is better!) but it's still better than nothing. And that's assuming only 3% which is a fair guesstimate, but it's still a years fees better than where we are now, but your number do indeed show the real challenge we face...if £5 a week only gets a years fee across someone entire working life then the problem is laid bare

 

But then the big question raised by several people on several threads reappears - only those that pay in the extra £5 have paid for care consideration in old age.

Assuming they work their whole life.

 

It doesn't address the issue raised by many - what about those who contribute nothing over their "working life" they still get the same as everyone else at a basic level.

[sgtkate]

But then the big question raised by several people on several threads reappears - only those that pay in the extra £5 have paid for care consideration in old age.

Assuming they work their whole life.

 

It doesn't address the issue raised by many - what about those who contribute nothing over their "working life" they still get the same as everyone else at a basic level.

 

In my world yes, because not everyone is in a position to contribute financially because of many reason, laziness isn't why most people don't work. I don't want to go too far off topic but the faster we stop looking at contribution in a purely financial sense and look at contribution to society as a whole, which could be a financial contribution or it could be people who care for others or volunteers and so on. We should pick up the tab without question for those who cannot contribute due to circumstances out of their control such as a disability or ill health, which leaves the contentious issue of people who CHOOSE not to contribute. I'd wager those people are the absolute minimum, a handful out of thousands, and the overall cost to us would be minimal, but I can see the counter argument that a society only functions if it's citizens actively support it and if people are choosing not to contribute in anyway you could question whether they should be considered citizens at all. John Major's 'social contract' to be seemed a great idea but it was laughed at.

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2017 at 16:15 ----------

 

At the moment 3% seems like a big return...

 

Depends where you invest

[Obelix]

At the moment 3% seems like a big return...

 

You can get more than that just in dividends at the moment on the LSE

[truman]

You can get more than that just in dividends at the moment on the LSE

 

Are you proposing that the government puts all our "old age care" money on red?

[willman]

In my world yes, because not everyone is in a position to contribute financially because of many reason, laziness isn't why most people don't work. I don't want to go too far off topic but the faster we stop looking at contribution in a purely financial sense and look at contribution to society as a whole, which could be a financial contribution or it could be people who care for others or volunteers and so on. We should pick up the tab without question for those who cannot contribute due to circumstances out of their control such as a disability or ill health, which leaves the contentious issue of people who CHOOSE not to contribute. I'd wager those people are the absolute minimum, a handful out of thousands, and the overall cost to us would be minimal, but I can see the counter argument that a society only functions if it's citizens actively support it and if people are choosing not to contribute in anyway you could question whether they should be considered citizens at all. John Major's 'social contract' to be seemed a great idea but it was laughed at.

 

---------- Post added 10-05-2017 at 16:15 ----------

 

 

Depends where you invest

 

I agree with some of the sentiments - as a society we should help where possible, which we do with a basic level of care for everyone. After that its; down to the individual - i've met literally dozens of every day people who do their utmost to prevent using their own money to pay for their own care when they get old. That's wrong IMHO until you die you pay your way.

I've also met dozens of people where the children never visit and its left to someone on minimum wage to do all the work - its not a surprise that they don't get remembered in the will.

 

(I can honestly say that out of every 10 homes i visited to write wills 8 of them were looking at a way to not pay for care.)

[spilldig]

That's a personal issue not a society issue. If you choose to buy property to secure your future then when you are into your "future" you need to spend it.

If you have other means to pay for it or to avoid paying for it then those are the breaks.

 

All noted, but still someone can have thousands of pounds took off them when others don't.

[Anna B]

If Nursing /Residential homes charged a more realistic amount then people maybe wouldn't object to paying so much and the state wouldn't be paying so much in subsidies either.

 

Both sides are getting ripped off. I wonder which of Cameron's cronies has the most care homes in his portfolio, and is getting very rich thankyou...

[Cyclone]

If nursing homes are ripping people off, why are so many of them going broke?

[I1L2T3]

I agree with some of the sentiments - as a society we should help where possible, which we do with a basic level of care for everyone. After that its; down to the individual - i've met literally dozens of every day people who do their utmost to prevent using their own money to pay for their own care when they get old. That's wrong IMHO until you die you pay your way.

I've also met dozens of people where the children never visit and its left to someone on minimum wage to do all the work - its not a surprise that they don't get remembered in the will.

 

(I can honestly say that out of every 10 homes i visited to write wills 8 of them were looking at a way to not pay for care.)

 

The problem is there's different types of care isn't there.

 

There is the type where people are just getting old and need help with daily activities. There is an argument that people should contribute to that, and it's obvious why because often there is an element of choice.

 

Then there are people who need care because of illness. That is not a choice. I have a problem with people being forced to contribute on the same or similar basis as those who choose a residential home because they need basic support with day to day living.

 

Unfortunately the two groups are merged together and considered as one.

 

---------- Post added 11-05-2017 at 09:14 ----------

 

If nursing homes are ripping people off, why are so many of them going broke?

 

Because in large part they are trying to turn a profit for a service that is not naturally going to be highly profitable, is labour and energy intensive and often operated in dated structures that were not purpose built.

 

It's why state provision makes sense in a lot of cases. Obviously the private sector can still provide sustainable businesses for customers who are willing to pay.

[Cyclone]

I'm pretty sure that getting old isn't a choice either.