Whatever happened to "saving for a rainy day"?

Pammie1

Casdon

I’m not sure I follow you Pammiel. Although it’s what most people want given a choice, it’s more expensive to provide care at home per hour of carer time used because of travel between clients, travel expenses etc. Care at home is only provided by LAs up to a certain level of dependency and to a limited number of hours per week, so most clients with little or no family support end up in care homes as their needs increase.

My point was - and looking back on my post I didn’t make it clear enough - that our LA uses a large private care concern and of the £26 an hour charged, only £12.50 goes to the actual care workers. The rest is overheads. It just doesn’t seem right that care in the community is being left to profit making organisations beholden to shareholders.

I’m with you now. Local Authorities have been forced to use care agencies because the Local Authorities care budgets are so tight, and it was cheaper for them than employing in house staff. The care staff individually have all suffered the consequences, with worse terms of service, zero hour contracts, etc. etc.

Doodledog

You're right that I haven't been directly involved, so there could easily be something I'm not 'getting', but I do feel that the system is inherently unfair for the reasons I have given.

It is unfair, you’re right there, I don’t think that it’s something people know about, or even think about generally until they are caught up in the system themselves, or their parents are, by which time the decisions and choices they have to make are stark.

Casdon

I’m not sure I follow you Pammiel. Although it’s what most people want given a choice, it’s more expensive to provide care at home per hour of carer time used because of travel between clients, travel expenses etc. Care at home is only provided by LAs up to a certain level of dependency and to a limited number of hours per week, so most clients with little or no family support end up in care homes as their needs increase.

My point was - and looking back on my post I didn’t make it clear enough - that our LA uses a large private care concern and of the £26 an hour charged, only £12.50 goes to the actual care workers. The rest is overheads. It just doesn’t seem right that care in the community is being left to profit making organisations beholden to shareholders.

Yes, I think that 'they' can easily find out how much you have in savings, unless you keep it under the mattress,

You're right that I haven't been directly involved, so there could easily be something I'm not 'getting', but I do feel that the system is inherently unfair for the reasons I have given.

Gabrielle56

Not wanting to sound flippant but- more fool you. I was advised by my father never to divulge any savings to anyone! What I'd saved out of already taxed money was my business alone! And he was a senior civil servant in a very sensitive department! So I never did, not that I ever had loads but they don't allow you hardly ANY savings.so be warned ,if you don't tell they can't find out and they also assume that majority of decent types tell the honest truth....

Who are ‘they’ ? To claim means tested benefits you have to provide proof of income and savings. Since when did DWP assume anyone is decent and telling the honest truth ?!!

Doodledog

You said it much better than I could have done.

Not at all. You are making your point very clear.

You are wasting your time though, as there is always an underlying assumption on here that people arguing for equality of provision are castigating others for not saving, or arguing from self-interest rather than principle. It happens every time, no matter how carefully the case for higher taxation and fair pay is made, and it's wearisome.

I can’t help thinking that’s not necessarily what the issue is for the majority of posters Doodledog, I think unless you’ve been directly involved you just don’t understand how complex and inherently unfair the care system funding arrangements actually are at present.

You said it much better than I could have done.

Not at all. You are making your point very clear.

You are wasting your time though, as there is always an underlying assumption on here that people arguing for equality of provision are castigating others for not saving, or arguing from self-interest rather than principle. It happens every time, no matter how carefully the case for higher taxation and fair pay is made, and it's wearisome.

I’m not sure I follow you Pammiel. Although it’s what most people want given a choice, it’s more expensive to provide care at home per hour of carer time used because of travel between clients, travel expenses etc. Care at home is only provided by LAs up to a certain level of dependency and to a limited number of hours per week, so most clients with little or no family support end up in care homes as their needs increase.

Doodledog

volver

I'm not suggesting you were moaning Doodledog. But when I see posts that are wondering why people bother to save when the feckless irresponsible poor get something for nothing, that does sting a bit (my words, not said by anyone here).

I agree that the tax system should be fairer and that those with more should pay more.

Ok, so can you explain how my hypothetical example above is fair?

You are right that there is an unpleasant amount of judgement and gloating on here - people buying coffee on the train are judged as though they are asking for a life of poverty - but there is no judgement implied in believing that everyone should spend their own money as they wish (and if they wish to save it, that is their right too). If anything it is quite the reverse, yet every time this conversation comes up (or any other mention of means-testing) the assumptions come think and fast.

Means testing (or 'targeting' as politicians prefer to call it) is not caring. It is not designed to give more to those with less. It is cruel and is designed to limit the number of beneficiaries from a scheme to which we all contribute (and, as a percentage of disposable income, it is the 'squeezed middle' who contribute the most). The rich are not impacted to any great extent and the very poor will get full means-tested benefits. It is the largest contributors (as a group) who get hit - people like nurses, teachers, office workers and others on PAYE, who don't have accountants to massage their earnings, and don't get paid in cash and decide how much to declare, but earn an average or only slightly above average income. If they buy a modest house, or squirrel money away in an ISA they are treated as though that money is not theirs, but must be spent on things that could be provided on the basis of need (as they are for the poor) if the tax system were fairer and if everybody paid in.

You said it much better than I could have done.

volver

^is obviously going to penalise some of the more frugal.^

If any of us live to be 100, we will have to pay to live; heating, food, TV licence, whatever. Whether we are in our own homes or in a residential facility, we will have to pay. I think my perspective is about whether those who have a bit of money behind them should be expected to spend it or not. And they should be expected to spend it. Sorry for being blunt, but what is the point of dying with thousands in the bank just so that your children can have it, but expecting the state to support your living expenses?

I am not talking about medical care, which I believe should be free at point of need for all. But I'm not going to get all would up about spending my/our money to support ourselves just because I think someone else doesn't deserve it.

I agree - but living in your own home until your 100 will be considerably cheaper than the present rates of full time care. And this is what I have a problem with. If care was still run directly by LA’s there would be less overheads so care would be cheaper for all. As it is, it’s run mostly by private providers who have all kinds of overheads, including an obligation to shareholders, so the resident ends up paying huge amounts. As an example our LA provides at home care at a rate of approximately £26 an hour, which self funders have to pay in full, of which approximately £12.50 is paid to the LA carers who do the work. It’s becoming unsustainable.

volver

It was you who used the phrase people who haven’t made provision for themselves. Which to me suggests that you think there are people who haven't behaved as you would like them to.

Maybe somebody can explain this to me....

Apparently the nice homes accommodate people funded by the LA who didn't make provision for themselves. But people who can't pay for themselves get moved to other, not-so-nice homes.

It doesn't add up, does it? Both can't be true.

Yes, I can explain it to you. It’s down to the personal budget that the council allocates to the person in care. If a person goes into a care home as a self funder from savings or the sale of a property, the choice of care home is chosen depending on budget and life expectancy.

Once savings drop below the £23,250 threshold a financial assessment is carried out and the person will become eligible for partial funding from the LA until savings drop below the minimum threshold of £14,250, then another financial assessment will determine the personal budget for the LA to start fully funding the persons’ care.

The personal budget offered by the council may not cover the fees the elderly person has been paying in their existing care home, so there is a shortfall between what the council is prepared to pay and what the care home is prepared to accept. The LA will provide a list of available care homes that will be affordable with that person’s personal budget and if the existing facility is not on it they will have to move.

If the person wants to stay put they may be expected to pay a top up fee to cover the shortfall - usually dependent on other income, or if this is not sufficient, on other family members agreeing to pay a top up fee. If there is no facility to cover the top up fees it will then depend on the contract the resident has with the care facility - some homes will accept council contributions as payment in full when the person runs out of money. Others will offer a grace period while residents make other arrangements or renegotiate to move to a smaller or shared room in the same facility, to cover the shortfall.

In other cases, there will be no alternative other than moving to a cheaper facility. Just because you are resident in a care home which also has LA funded residents, doesn’t mean you can automatically stay on when your funding runs out. It depends on the personal budget set by the council and if there are no available facilities within the existing home which are affordable then you have to move. It’s not rocket science, and it’s also not hard to figure out how this could all be avoided with targeted taxation to make sure everyone can access affordable later life care.

In my experience the really excellent homes are full of self funders, they can provide the best care as everybody pays more than the LAs can afford. The LAs block book beds in some homes, and in some it’s a fight for beds depending on who gets in first. Preference is given to self funders because they pay more. It’s not a fair system, but that is how it works in practice. So the homes which accept clients who are both LA funded and self funders and are good are sought after like gold dust.

It was you who used the phrase people who haven’t made provision for themselves. Which to me suggests that you think there are people who haven't behaved as you would like them to.

Maybe somebody can explain this to me....

Apparently the nice homes accommodate people funded by the LA who didn't make provision for themselves. But people who can't pay for themselves get moved to other, not-so-nice homes.

It doesn't add up, does it? Both can't be true.

volver

^What I have a real problem with is them being asked to subsidise care for people who haven’t made provision for themselves.^

Some people are completely unable to "make provision for themselves."

This attitude completely undermines any other points you are making and smacks of the worst kind of Victorian attitudes to the "undeserving poor".

Don’t be bloody ridiculous. That’s not what I’m saying at all and you know it. The attitude of the ‘undeserving poor’ should be consigned to history, where it belongs. If this were a case of the rich subsidising the poor I’d agree with you, but it’s not. It’s a case of those who have a bit more subsidising those who have nothing. If we had a proper, targeted tax system into which everyone paid at a rate they could afford, then everyone would get the same care when they need it. But we’re lumped with a system where those who have saved or have even modest property, are made to pay from their own funding pot, to subsidise those who can’t pay. And it’s to their detriment because when the funding pot runs out, they are moved to a cheaper facility before the LA will take over the funding. We worked out that if our relative lives five years, she will have contributed £60,000 to other peoples’ care and as a consequence will run out of funding and be moved to a cheaper facility which may not be able to fully meet her needs, two years early ? The Tory ‘divide and rule’ policy works doesn’t it ? We’re sniping at those who have slightly more while leaving the super rich alone to laugh at us.

volver

Good luck with the AA Blondiescot.

Thank you! I'm keeping everything crossed that the applications are successful. Both are very elderly (in their 90s) and very frail, with a whole host of medical conditions, so quite frankly, if they don't qualify, I've no idea who does.

Pammie1

volver

I think it’s very wrong that two people could be on the same salary (so equally able or unable to ‘afford’ care fees) with one spending while the other saves, and the saver ends up not only paying for the care the spender gets free, but is charged more in fees to subsidise the spender’s care. If anyone can explain to me how that is fair I’d be interested to hear them.

None of us get to decide whether what a person spends their salary on is "right and proper". We have no idea what expenses each person is responsible for.

As for a private funder subsidising a local authority funded one, well I have no experience of that. Personally, I don't know the fiscal arrangements behind that and whether the Care Homes can claim other expenses for the LA-funded residents. Actually, what I'm saying is that I don't believe that they just charge you more because you have more money. That's not my experience. Sorry. Its not Ryanair.

Incidentally, I abhor means testing.

I was the poster who started the discussion about self funders subsidising LA funded care home residents. Because I have personal experience of it. As a family we arranged for an elderly relative to move into a dementia care home and oversaw the sale of their home to fund it. When we indicated that it would be self funded, the rate went up by £1000 a month. You can also have a look on BBC iplayer for a programme called ‘Inside The Care Crisis’ presented by Ed Balls. The care home he volunteered for were very honest about the fact that they charge £1100 a month more for self funders to subsidise LA funded residents for exactly the same facilities. I don’t have any problem with people funding their own care if they are able. What I have a real problem with is them being asked to subsidise care for people who haven’t made provision for themselves. It comes out of the self funders own pot and given that LA’s will insist on residents moving to cheaper facilities before they will pay when the funding pot is exhausted, I don’t think it’s fair to raid someone else’s savings when it could be used to extend their stay in their chosen facility. Here’s a link to a Financial Times investigation into the issue. The fees are lower in this instance, but it’s the same principle. www.ft.com/content/6c61fa30-f1dc-11e6-8758-6876151821a6

It’s definitely true. LAs use their bargaining power to reduce the rates to the bone for their clients, who use a significant proportion of the beds in most care homes. The care homes don’t make any profit, in fact many make a loss on those occupied beds, but they have to take what’s offered because there aren’t enough self payers, except for a small number of homes which attract a high number of self payers.

Doodledog

It can't cost £1600 a week to keep someone in a care home, can it? Particularly as medical care would be given in hospital where it is free at point of need. Yes, nursing costs are high, but we all know that care workers are shamefully underpaid, and most homes use carers rather than nurses. Even with gourmet food, trips out to exotic places and luxury accommodation £1600 a week to look after an old person must include a lot of profit.

Our relative is in a care home which specialises in dementia care and the cost is around £1200 a week. It’s not gourmet food and I wouldn’t describe the facility as luxurious, although it’s pleasant enough with ground floor rooms opening onto pretty gardens. The staff are lovely, and dedicated, but when our relative has had medical issues - twice up to now - she’s been transferred to hospital for treatment, I wouldn’t like to comment on the profits because I really don’t have a clue, but I agree with you - it seems an excessive charge for what they get in return.

What I have a real problem with is them being asked to subsidise care for people who haven’t made provision for themselves.

Some people are completely unable to "make provision for themselves."

This attitude completely undermines any other points you are making and smacks of the worst kind of Victorian attitudes to the "undeserving poor".

volver

^I think it’s very wrong that two people could be on the same salary (so equally able or unable to ‘afford’ care fees) with one spending while the other saves, and the saver ends up not only paying for the care the spender gets free, but is charged more in fees to subsidise the spender’s care. If anyone can explain to me how that is fair I’d be interested to hear them.^

None of us get to decide whether what a person spends their salary on is "right and proper". We have no idea what expenses each person is responsible for.

As for a private funder subsidising a local authority funded one, well I have no experience of that. Personally, I don't know the fiscal arrangements behind that and whether the Care Homes can claim other expenses for the LA-funded residents. Actually, what I'm saying is that I don't believe that they just charge you more because you have more money. That's not my experience. Sorry. Its not Ryanair.

Incidentally, I abhor means testing.

I was the poster who started the discussion about self funders subsidising LA funded care home residents. Because I have personal experience of it. As a family we arranged for an elderly relative to move into a dementia care home and oversaw the sale of their home to fund it. When we indicated that it would be self funded, the rate went up by £1000 a month. You can also have a look on BBC iplayer for a programme called ‘Inside The Care Crisis’ presented by Ed Balls. The care home he volunteered for were very honest about the fact that they charge £1100 a month more for self funders to subsidise LA funded residents for exactly the same facilities. I don’t have any problem with people funding their own care if they are able. What I have a real problem with is them being asked to subsidise care for people who haven’t made provision for themselves. It comes out of the self funders own pot and given that LA’s will insist on residents moving to cheaper facilities before they will pay when the funding pot is exhausted, I don’t think it’s fair to raid someone else’s savings when it could be used to extend their stay in their chosen facility. Here’s a link to a Financial Times investigation into the issue. The fees are lower in this instance, but it’s the same principle. www.ft.com/content/6c61fa30-f1dc-11e6-8758-6876151821a6

volver

Oh for goodness sake Doodledog.

I'm not having this conversation any more. When I type something your default position seems to be "Do you mean this terrible thing? Do you mean this fact that I have just thought up and attributed to you? Who are you having a go at?"

I'm bored with it.

It can't cost £1600 a week to keep someone in a care home, can it? Particularly as medical care would be given in hospital where it is free at point of need. Yes, nursing costs are high, but we all know that care workers are shamefully underpaid, and most homes use carers rather than nurses. Even with gourmet food, trips out to exotic places and luxury accommodation £1600 a week to look after an old person must include a lot of profit.

Good luck with the AA Blondiescot.

Oh for goodness sake Doodledog.

I'm not having this conversation any more. When I type something your default position seems to be "Do you mean this terrible thing? Do you mean this fact that I have just thought up and attributed to you? Who are you having a go at?"

I'm bored with it.

volver

Doodledog

These conversations do skirt the insulting, though. I find the suggestion that I am castigating the poor for squandering money insulting, too.

If the system were fair there would be no minefield - you would get what you get. As it is, some get some pay, some can get people in to look at the finances - whether you would or not, it happens.

You're a bit too keen to think everything on here refers to you Doodledog.

So, the minefield...

Is my DF eligible for Attendance Allowance? Podiatry care? A Care Manager? A community alarm? Daily carers? Is he ill enough? Is he old enough? (All these questions are rhetorical.)

Please stop trying to tell me its not a minefield when I am finding it to be a minefield. Please stop being so condescending. It will always be a minefield because we'll never be able to just tick a box and say "send me everything please."

It is an absolute minefield, volver, I totally agree with you on that. I've just had to apply for attendance allowance for my very elderly inlaws (as well as negotiating all the other things mentioned too). Now, I'm far from stupid and used to dealing with official paperwork of all sorts, but the AA forms were a total nightmare to complete. How people with no support system whatsoever manage is beyond me. Anyway, the forms are now completed (to the best of my ability) and fingers crossed they will be granted AA.