Care Fees and Offspring.

[stanleypj]

I am afraid I can't totally agree Stanley.

Well, there's a surprise!

You are just repeating the underlying view of all the main political parties which is that 'nothing can be done' as any change would be too expensive. Fortunately, in the coming election some of us will be able to vote for a party with a more enlightened policy.

I expect you're right about the Attlee government's reasoning way back in the mid-twentieth century and, incidentally in a period of unavoidable austerity, but so much more is now known about conditions like dementia (though not nearly enough). I'm sure a distinction between 'frailty' issues and problems caused by dementia could be made today, though personally I think frail people who need help to stay as healthy as they can be should be cared for.

I notice that you give no examples of the other illnesses which you say are in the same category as dementia. Perhaps you could do so.

To clarify, someone who is in danger of dying because they have a damaged heart does not have to pay to be kept alive. Why should someone with dementia have to pay to be kept alive (I know some people would ideally like to be euthanised rather than kept alive, but that's a different issue)?

 

[Pickles53]

For me at least, it's hard to see how it is "unfair" for those with assets or income to be expected to use these for at least some non-clinical aspects of their own care, nor do I see how care for those without such assets could be anything other than publicly funded in some way. To answer Lyn T's point I don't expect public money to be used for my father's care until his assets are exhausted - they are his assets and to be used for his benefit. Anything in his will is a bonus for its beneficiaries. (As I'm not one, it doesn't affect me either way in any case.)

W

Really interesting post Wirralson. Definitely agree with this paragraph and the sentence in bold in particular. It follows logically to me that these assets should all be available to fund the individual's care, not 'protected' in a way which effectively results in public funding subsidising the next generation's inheritance .

 

[WILLIAMR]

Really interesting post Wirralson. Definitely agree with this paragraph and the sentence in bold in particular. It follows logically to me that these assets should all be available to fund the individual's care, not 'protected' in a way which effectively results in public funding subsidising the next generation's inheritance .

I can see what you are saying. As I am sure you know my mother did not want money she had earned going to another family so that is why she left her share of the bungalow to me and my father left me his on condition I let my step mother live in the bungalow till death or entering care.
The social worker said as my step mother was married to my father the bungalow should have been sold to fund her care. The legal situation was she did not own it.
Of course if my father had needed care half of the bungalow did not belong to him and under present law none of it could have been used to fund his care.
I don't think my mother or father did anything wrong morally or legally willing their halves of the bungalow to me.

William

 

[jan.s]

It distresses me greatly that dementia isn't seen as an illness, i.e. funded by the NHS. On top of the stress of losing a loved one to this illness, we have to worry about money too, and whether we can get funding.

Dementia isn't a lifestyle choice.

Other conditions are, such as obesity. If you are morbidly obese, you can now claim DLA (or whatever it's called these days), you are considered to be disabled and get a blue badge; on top of that you can have bariatric surgery. A&E is overflowing with people who have had too much to drink on a Saturday night, another lifestyle choice.

And yet, someone who has lived a "sensible" life, is hit with dementia, through no fault of their own, and have to pay for care, unless they are lucky enough to be granted CHC. They are also liable to lose the CHC funding, because their condition deteriorates and they are no longer seen as a danger to themselves or others.

I shall now jump down from my soapbox and find something for dinner. I have to say this is only my opinion, and I'm sure other people will have some argument against it.

 

[jaymor]

WILLIAM half of the bungalow could have been used to fund your Father's care if he had needed it. There is no law that says a property cannot be sold if the owners want to. You would just have had to put up a for sale board, paid the selling fees and handed your Father his half of the proceeds.

Luckily your Father did not need his half so there was no problem and your parents achieved their wishes of assets staying within their family.

The problems arise when the inheritor won't sell their half and the surviving owner can do nothing about it, thus has no way of accessing the monetary value of their half. Now there is no way you can say that is morally right.

 

[lexy]

deleted

 

[WILLIAMR]

WILLIAM half of the bungalow could have been used to fund your Father's care if he had needed it. There is no law that says a property cannot be sold if the owners want to. You would just have had to put up a for sale board, paid the selling fees and handed your Father his half of the proceeds.

Luckily your Father did not need his half so there was no problem and your parents achieved their wishes of assets staying within their family.do

The problems arise when the inheritor won't sell their half and the surviving owner can nothing about it, thus has no way of accessing the monetary value of their half. Now there is no way you can say that is morally right.

Hi Jaymor

The social worker said it was not morally right for me to not fund my step mother's care.
That might have been the case but as I was not legally obliged to do so I did not.
She said my mother should not have left her half to me and it should have gone to my father and then to my step mother so it would have been available to fund her care.

William

 

[LYN T]

Hi Jaymor

The social worker said it was not morally right for me to not fund my step mother's care.
That might have been the case but as I was not legally obliged to do so I did not.
She said my mother should not have left her half to me and it should have gone to my father and then to my step mother so it would have been available to fund her care.

William

William

Jaymor is questioning the potential funding of your father's care (if he had needed it) not your stepmother's.Your SM had her son to make provision/decisions over her care. He was next of kin.If your Dad had needed care (and thank goodness he didn't) it would have been a shame if the BUNGALOW had not been sold and half of the proceeds gone towards his care. Of course, your half would have been protected because of your Mothers bequest.As your Mother had willed you her half that is all very good and proper-however, I'm sure she would not have wanted your Dad's half to be used on anything but his care?

Lexy and Jan S-I agree that Dementia is an organic illness not a mental health issue.Dementia should be identified as such. Jan S I hope that you enjoy your dinner I hope that you share a little bit of it with Dougal

 

[jaymor]

Hi Jaymor

The social worker said it was not morally right for me to not fund my step mother's care.
That might have been the case but as I was not legally obliged to do so I did not.
She said my mother should not have left her half to me and it should have gone to my father and then to my step mother so it would have been available to fund her care.

William

William you have miss read my post. I made no mention of your Step Mother, her care or her having any claim on your bungalow or you paying for her care.

 

[jan.s]

Hope you found something tasty for your dinner.

Jan S I hope that you enjoy your dinner I hope that you share a little bit of it with Dougal

Nothing exciting! I had a jacket potato with cheese and salad. Dougal enjoyed some cheese. I'm just about to eat some fresh pineapple now with greek yogurt, yum! Couldn't face preparing what I had planned, but will do so tomorrow.

 

[WILLIAMR]

William

Jaymor is questioning the potential funding of your father's care (if he had needed it) not your stepmother's.Your SM had her son to make provision/decisions over her care. He was next of kin.If your Dad had needed care (and thank goodness he didn't) it would have been a shame if the BUNGALOW had not been sold and half of the proceeds gone towards his care. Of course, your half would have been protected because of your Mothers bequest.As your Mother had willed you her half that is all very good and proper-however, I'm sure she would not have wanted your Dad's half to be used on anything but his care?

Lexy and Jan S-I agree that Dementia is an organic illness not a mental health issue.Dementia should be identified as such. Jan S I hope that you enjoy your dinner I hope that you share a little bit of it with Dougal

Hi Lyn

If Dad had needed care I would have made the LA pay at its usual rate and I would have paid top up.
Dad paid his taxes and I am still paying tax.


William

 

[garnuft]

Other conditions are, such as obesity. If you are morbidly obese, you can now claim DLA (or whatever it's called these days), you are considered to be disabled and get a blue badge; on top of that you can have bariatric surgery. A&E is overflowing with people who have had too much to drink on a Saturday night, another lifestyle choice

Divide and rule.

It's always better if us in the 99% fight each other for reasons why 'they' don't deserve help.

Meanwhile the 1% increase their profits.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

 

[optocarol]

Just to change the subject a little - only if you want to.

In my case, I'm the stepmother. In NZ the couple's assets are what matter for the residential care subsidy. Fortunately, my OH, who is a lot older than I am, is the one with much greater assets, so it's unlikely mine would ever be called upon. However, I'm still glad most of mine are in a trust, as i don't think they should be forced to pay for his care.

As it is, sometimes I feel I've given up a lot, (I had a good income), even though he bought the house and pays the bills. At the moment coping with 1 step-daughter telling me her sister thinks I used $10000 to go see my children in the US. Sometimes do not feel appreciated!

 

[Pickles53]

In NZ the couple's assets are what matter for the residential care subsidy.

I think NZ law has it right. As the marriage service says: 'all that I have I share with you'. My husband has always earned more than me but neither of us would think of our assets as being 'his' or 'mine'.

 

[optocarol]

I think NZ law has it right. As the marriage service says: 'all that I have I share with you'. My husband has always earned more than me but neither of us would think of our assets as being 'his' or 'mine'.

Well, I'm afraid OH didn't think that way - he was afraid my kids would get some of what he'd worked hard for, meaning his would get less.
PS Should add, he's 83, we've been married 12 years.

 

[LYN T]

Just to change the subject a little - only if you want to.

In my case, I'm the stepmother. In NZ the couple's assets are what matter for the residential care subsidy. Fortunately, my OH, who is a lot older than I am, is the one with much greater assets, so it's unlikely mine would ever be called upon. However, I'm still glad most of mine are in a trust, as i don't think they should be forced to pay for his care.

As it is, sometimes I feel I've given up a lot, (I had a good income), even though he bought the house and pays the bills. At the moment coping with 1 step-daughter telling me her sister thinks I used $10000 to go see my children in the US. Sometimes do not feel appreciated!

Change of subject ok with me

The more I read on here about Step- childrens attitudes towards their step parent the more I cringe My late Husband never had children of his own and I had one child. My daughter adored my Husband and he adored her. Pete used to say that if you could 'buy' children in a supermarket he would have 'bought' her as she was perfect.I can quite understand why you feel you are not appreciated-as is usual it appears to be concern over inheritance that drives these feelings. Terrible

Love Lyn T XX

 

[stanleypj]

I think NZ law has it right. As the marriage service says: 'all that I have I share with you'. My husband has always earned more than me but neither of us would think of our assets as being 'his' or 'mine'.

That exactly sums up what our attitude was and our estate is willed in equal parts to 'our' children (we have two each). Then dementia came into our lives and the prospect of paying potentially massive sums on care does put a different complexion on things, doesn't it?

Later my father-in-law decided to leave all my wife's share of his estate to my step-daughters on the grounds that it would otherwise eventually be 'wasted' on care fees.

This has somewhat affected my view of him, and 'our' money.

 

[Wirralson]

Well, there's a surprise!

You are just repeating the underlying view of all the main political parties which is that 'nothing can be done' as any change would be too expensive. Fortunately, in the coming election some of us will be able to vote for a party with a more enlightened policy.

I expect you're right about the Attlee government's reasoning way back in the mid-twentieth century and, incidentally in a period of unavoidable austerity, but so much more is now known about conditions like dementia (though not nearly enough). I'm sure a distinction between 'frailty' issues and problems caused by dementia could be made today, though personally I think frail people who need help to stay as healthy as they can be should be cared for.

I notice that you give no examples of the other illnesses which you say are in the same category as dementia. Perhaps you could do so.

To clarify, someone who is in danger of dying because they have a damaged heart does not have to pay to be kept alive. Why should someone with dementia have to pay to be kept alive (I know some people would ideally like to be euthanised rather than kept alive, but that's a different issue)?

Which party would that be, Stanley? And what exactly is the "enlightened" policy? I've read the manifestos all three main English political parties (Lab, Con, LibDem) and tehre is little or nothing fo substance in any of them. Given teh state of public finances there is little room for manoeuvre for a generation

I haven't repeated any view - I don't say nothing can be done - I actually state quite specifically that funding will have to increase and probably by a combination of further funding from individuals towards the costs of their own care combined with public funds. The manifesto commitments display a horrifying lack of numerical back up. But the numbers requiring care, other pressures on public funds, and limitations on tax yields are one key part of the issue. But the other one is that funding more care for dementia dementia sufferers or other chronic conditions) by the taxpayer (for example, making all care free at the point of use) doesn't really benefit the sufferer - it only benefits their estate. Effectively, such a proposal transfers money from all those paying direct and indirect taxes (which bear most heavily on the poorest) to the benefit of those with assets. I'm struggling to understand how a proposal which is will result in what is essentially a wealth redistribution from the poor to the middle classes has any element of justice at all.

Your reasoning about the illnesses is false.There are any number of chronic and progressive illnesses of the mind and body which have characteristics similar to those of the various conditions that can be described as "dementia".If you want examples, MND/ALS, Parkinson's disease (look on the Parkinson's forum and you will find issues around CHC are similar to those on here....) certain brain tumours, muscular dystrophy..... Someone who is dying of a damaged heart or motor neurone disease or, for that matter dementia does not have to pay to be kept alive so far as the clinical element of their care is concerned. But a heart patient or MND sufferer will not (normally) be kept in residential care or hospital - the aim is the same as with all other ailments to keep them at home so far as possible. Clinically the doctrine is always one of the least intervention to achieve the desired outcome. The question isn't the diagnosis but whether there is a clinical need for medical care. That is the definition CHC tries to address - we can argue about how well it does it, but the distinction has to be made somewhere as you recognise in your post.

W