What is the average cost per week of a good OAP Home?

I do think, like dragonfly, that everyone should pay the same whether self funding or being funded by the state. Those with modest assets lose all except the last £23000 if they have to go into a care home. Why should they be the ones subsidising others through having to pay for the same service? The difference should be picked up by the state/local authority which in essence means all of us. No need for this burden to be picked up by the unfortunate home owners or asset owners who have to go into a care home. Enough that they pay for themselves. The difference in charges between those and state funded residents should be a communal responsibility paid for by the tax payer not added to the burden of those paying for themselves.

Through having to pay more for the same service [line 4 missed out 'more']

The unfairness lies in the funding dependent on condition. Get cancer, you don’t pay a penny. Get dementia, you pay for your care.

I wasn’t especially concerned that my parents had to pay for their excellent care home. They saved for s rainy day, it arrived and the umbrella went up.

Yes, same with my grandmother, my parents and my MIL.

In Switzerland they are not allowed to discriminate- the quality of care, home or room cannot be linked to your ability to pay (unless you specifically pick a 5* place in a 5* resort). At the 'home' where my parents were- the only way my dad could join my mum after a few months of being apart, was to share her already smaller room, facing north. They barely had space to move. It would infuriate dad who knew (as it was local and very small- 12 beds) - that they were probably two of the very few who were paying full whack out of savings and sale of family home. Those in the large south facing rooms with balconies were all 'state funded'. We tried our best to play this down and to turn it into a joke with him - but he was not amused.

We found a great private care home for MIL in Surrey when she began with Alzheimer's - but a couple of years later, she was so bad the Manager said she had to move into a specialised place. It was heart breaking to find a suitable place- but in the end we had to take the best of very bad - she died the night before the move. We never knew if perhaps she was aware and 'chose' to go.

But in each case, as with my maternal grandmother before that - all the money went, and we never resented that. That was not OUR money, and we had not worked or save for it.

So how do we solve the problems of underfunding? Many complaints on here but few solutions.

I cannot see it being anything other than insurance, like the NHS, which should pay for preventative action too - daycare, etc.

I have no idea how you stop mental conditions not being treated equally with medical ones.

It is indeed very complex.

It is however clear that Boris's promises that no-one will have to sell their home to pay for their care (and allow inheritors to sell it and make a lot of money after demise) - is just not feasible.

Thinking of several acquaintances who will leave many millions to their adult children who are already very well off - should they get their care for free- whilsts the 'public' pays extra taxes to cover that cost? Even in our case, we are not very well off in cash term- but own 2 properties and the combined cost amounts to a very 'neat' sum - and I hope that our children and grandchildren will inherit something one day - but I would not dream of expecting people less well off to pay for our care (fortunately, we live in a place where long term decline can be avoided - pheeew.)

That's not quite true, Shoequeen.

Cancer killed both my parents. My father died at home and my mother died in a home after she'd been there for just a couple of weeks.

In neither case could they stay in hospital, because there was nothing more that could be done medically. My mother spent two fairly miserable years at home, hardly mobile and in an increasing amount of pain. Neither had any sign of dementia.

Both had to pay for home care, which was woefully inadequate. Neither could dress, wash or feed themselves. My siblings and I did what we could, but we all had other responsibilities and couldn't do that much. Neither parent would hear of going into any kind of home. The debts continued to increase and neither left very much in the end.

I don't resent that they left us practically nothing, but I do object a bit when people say that people with cancer don't pay anything for their care.

That's the issue, jura. The people who need the care don't pay - the people who inherit their assets might inherit less. They're the ones who are complaining. The Conservatives actually did come up with a solution, which would have meant paying but protecting £100k. For some reason which I've never understood, Labour shot it down. £100k is still a reasonable amount to inherit.

Whatever the solution, it's clear that Johnson really doesn't have a clue and won't come up with anything.

It is however clear that Boris's promises that no-one will have to sell their home to pay for their care (and allow inheritors to sell it and make a lot of money after demise) - is just not feasible.

I'm afraid Boris is wilier than you think Jura. There have been suggestions of a sort of equity release held by the state. This way you do not have to sell your home but the value reverts to the state.

If we set up an insurance plan - they have also looked at the Australian system I understand - those of us who have not paid in from the required age will still have to have some call on capital. The very rich may be able to buy back payments of course but until such a system has worked through I feel there will always be a capital element.

100k would seem very fair- and much higher than the sum allowed per person in Switzerland.

I think we are all agreed that this is a problem which needs to be addressed, and equally, we are all agreed that Johnson's promises are worthless. Cameron was voted in a few years back with a manifesto promise of nobody having to pay more than £35k of their capital for care home fees, and shortly after winning the election that promise went into the 'too hard' filing tray and was quietly shelved. So much for the will of the people there eh?
There is another way of looking at this though, my friend's Mother has just died, said Mother ( and late Father) had a house in an expensive area which is for sale for £1.4m. This money was not earned through hard work, it was acquired through lunatic house prices, so are people suggesting that I as a tax payer, should have paid for my friend's Mother's care home fees in order that said friend could inherit this life changing amount of money? Where does it end?

Exactly. Where do you put the line? 100k seems fair to me.

That's exactly what people are suggesting, GillT.

I hope we are not back to the "dissatisfied with everything" group. If you know a better answer than a National Insurance scheme then tell us what it is.