Whatever happened to "saving for a rainy day"?

One thing I agree with in your long post Doodledog is that nothing is fair. Often I am lumped in here on GN as one of the lefties, which I would be glad to be. Elder care, social care should all be equally available to all. But its not. That is the real world. So there are two things I want to say.

I will never be dissuaded from the belief that if a person has "money in the bank" or reasonable assets they they should expect to use it to help them have a comfortable old age, and the ACs will just have to do without. If those assets include a high value house, it gets counted in. Tough luck for the kids. (And I am such a "kid"). Some people have nothing at all on which to live in their old age, and the idea that someone with assets gets to keep them because they want to pass something on to the next generation is not acceptable, IMO.

Secondly. There have been several posts complaining that there are people who have squandered their money but are still getting looked after. Well, to me, that sounds like blaming the poor folks. I certainly don't have any knowledge of how care homes are financed, but I do know enough about pricing and costs in general to know that just because person A pays x, and person B pays x+10%, that doesn't mean Person B is being exploited. For instance. Perhaps the care home can only be viable if the annual income is £z per patient. But the LA can only pay £z-10%, that's all they have. So the shortfall has to be found somewhere or no-one gets to stay in the accommodation. Because the accommodation goes bust. Sometimes things aren't as straightforward as we think.

Thank you for you advice Pammie1, its a minefield.

Care funding and assessment I believe is different in England to the other U.K. countries.
The problem in England as I see it is that the LA do not have sufficient funds to fully cover the cost of care/nursing home fees and for those who cannot fund themselves there is an increasingly limited choice of those homes who will take LA funded residents.
It’s plainly impossible to try and run care and nursing for the elderly as a profitable business.
Perhaps Ms Truss will re consider the Poor Relief Act, and bring Dickensian workhouses back.

Pammie1

volver

I am currently trying to arrange care for my DF. He has a bit of savings. It is obvious to me that we use any money he has managed to collect to support him in his old age. If he runs out of money, I expect the State to support him. I won't be moaning about the fact that he is paying his way. I don't understand people who do moan about that. Pay your way, if you can.

Please remember that he would be eligible for local authority care funding if his savings are below £14.250. He would also qualify for partial help between £14,250 and £23,250. And no-one is saying you shouldn’t pay your way, just pointing out how unfair the system is for those who have the least. Given that most local authorities will move self funding residents to a cheaper facility once the funding source is exhausted, I don’t think it’s fair to ask them to subsidise other peoples’ care when the money could be used to extend funding for themselves.

I agree that self funders shouldn’t be expected to subsidise the care of others in care homes who are funded by Local Authorities Pammiel, which is effectively what is happening because Local Authorities don’t pay enough for people they place there, and many care homes would go bankrupt if they didn’t charge self paying residents more.

I agree with volver that if we have money to pay for our own care we should do so, but I think there should be one rate charged for everybody in each home, rather than cheaper for Local Authority placements, so self funders can remain in their home of choice.

So would you see it as fair to use financial loopholes to make the system work for you around savings limits and so on? The way you present it it not a minefield at all. It is a simple case of 'pay if you have the money'. Or am I missing something?

And I repeat - I am not accusing anyone of squandering anything. On other threads (and possibly this one - there are a few merging just now) I am defending the youth of today against accusations of profligacy for daring to buy coffee on their commute . I just think that we should all spend what we earn and have been taxed on as we see fit. Gin and sausages, or hair-shirts and bibles - each to their own and no argument from me.

The term "minefield" refers to what a person is entitled to in these cases. And as Farzanah says, its different depending on where you are in the UK. So there's no need to dispute it, because it is difficult to navigate, hence a minefield. So yes, you are missing something.

I have no idea why, out of nowhere, you might think I would use "savings loopholes". I find that suggestion quite insulting, actually.

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.

Sorry, that last sentence should have been '. . .some get, some pay and some can get people in . . . '

Doodlebug: I just think that we should all spend what we earn and have been taxed on as we see fit.

Fair enough. No need to complain about the housing ladder or care home fees - if everyone spends as they see fit. Some save, some don't. Some see waste in less than frugal behaviour, some don't.

We drink PGTips milk tea (I just learned that was common). I'm proud as commoners we can pay for our own care and don't care a jot that removes from a supposed 'nest egg'. I'm happy to give generously, pay taxes, help the less fortunate. Good enough to me.

Are you agreeing with me or having a dig? It's hard to tell from the tone of your post.

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."

I'll ignore the insults, as neither of us like those.

It will always be a minefield because we'll never be able to just tick a box and say "send me everything please."

Are you suggesting that everyone wants to do that? Those who want to spend and get free care, or just those who don't? Those who get financial advice on how to keep as much of their savings as possible, or those who don't? Those who willingly pay for something a sibling or neighbour gets free or those who have no choice but resent it?

I'm not arguing for getting anything free - I am arguing for fair taxation so that all those who need it get care free at point of need. Most people would be net contributors as most people don't need care.

volver

One thing I agree with in your long post Doodledog is that nothing is fair. Often I am lumped in here on GN as one of the lefties, which I would be glad to be. Elder care, social care should all be equally available to all. But its not. That is the real world. So there are two things I want to say.

I will never be dissuaded from the belief that if a person has "money in the bank" or reasonable assets they they should expect to use it to help them have a comfortable old age, and the ACs will just have to do without. If those assets include a high value house, it gets counted in. Tough luck for the kids. (And I am such a "kid"). Some people have nothing at all on which to live in their old age, and the idea that someone with assets gets to keep them because they want to pass something on to the next generation is not acceptable, IMO.

Secondly. There have been several posts complaining that there are people who have squandered their money but are still getting looked after. Well, to me, that sounds like blaming the poor folks. I certainly don't have any knowledge of how care homes are financed, but I do know enough about pricing and costs in general to know that just because person A pays x, and person B pays x+10%, that doesn't mean Person B is being exploited. For instance. Perhaps the care home can only be viable if the annual income is £z per patient. But the LA can only pay £z-10%, that's all they have. So the shortfall has to be found somewhere or no-one gets to stay in the accommodation. Because the accommodation goes bust. Sometimes things aren't as straightforward as we think.

I agree with you that someone with assets should use them to pay for any care they need, regardless of any adult children they might have who would like an inheritance. My parents did not inherit a penny from my grandparents, both sets lived in council housing and had very little money of their own. In fact my father contributed to grandmas care home fees as he was not happy with the care available at the LA run home ( this was in 1985 when there were such homes) so paid a top up fee for a home he preferred.

I did not expect to inherit anything from my mum, she was very lucky to have sufficient savings and a good pension so when it became unsafe for her to live at home, we could choose the right care home for her, knowing that she could afford the fees for several years. If all her money was used to pay for her care, so be it, it’s what it was for. As it happens, mum has left a decent inheritance for her children but I’ve never factored it into my financial planning so it will be a bonus and I intend to share it with my children.

I also agree with your explanation of the pricing structure, a care home can only operate if it has sufficient income otherwise they would not be in business. However, most care home providers are private companies with owners wanting a profit or with shareholders expecting a return on their investment. If they were still council run and had not been privatised then maybe fees would be lower and more equal. Had mum lived in a different home, say a BUPA one or Sunrise, her fees would have been much higher, one close to me charges £1600 a week! I wonder how much of that is profit rather than running costs?

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.

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.

Good luck with the AA Blondiescot.

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.