Yes, that is the problem, and I don't see that changing, given the cost... I read somewhere that the NHS, and other healthcare systems, will not address this because the cost is just too high, and is set to increase.
continuing care fees and costs
- Thread starter iggypop37
- Start date
Yes, that is the problem, and I don't see that changing, given the cost... I read somewhere that the NHS, and other healthcare systems, will not address this because the cost is just too high, and is set to increase.
Miss Marple
You make some excellent comments on the inequalities of the whole system of long-term health care, which can result in costing patients their whole savings.
I admire your honesty about inheritance. People who appeal CHC decisions on behalf of a parent are always accused of 'protecting their inheritance', yet they would not be begrudged of that inheritance if the parent was not ill. I also think, however, that they are just as much trying to respect that parent's wishes to leave their assets to whomever they want, in the way that anyone else can. People are only denied this right as a result of their illness.
Let us not forget that it can also be for the common good if people are allowed to inherit money. As an example, if my father is allowed his wish to leave his assets to his beloved grandchildren, they would use this money to help them buy a place to live. As a result, they would not be adding to the lists of people waiting for social housing, and are less likely to be reliant on the state for benefits.
You make some excellent comments on the inequalities of the whole system of long-term health care, which can result in costing patients their whole savings.
I admire your honesty about inheritance. People who appeal CHC decisions on behalf of a parent are always accused of 'protecting their inheritance', yet they would not be begrudged of that inheritance if the parent was not ill. I also think, however, that they are just as much trying to respect that parent's wishes to leave their assets to whomever they want, in the way that anyone else can. People are only denied this right as a result of their illness.
Let us not forget that it can also be for the common good if people are allowed to inherit money. As an example, if my father is allowed his wish to leave his assets to his beloved grandchildren, they would use this money to help them buy a place to live. As a result, they would not be adding to the lists of people waiting for social housing, and are less likely to be reliant on the state for benefits.
So the future looks very bleak then, doesn't it?
Continued funding of the NHS will indeed be hugely expensive, so there is a choice between either raising the money somehow, or seeing the gradual demise of our NHS. I know what I would prefer.
Basic personal/social care needed at home for people with any illness is means tested, as this is of a level that social services are legally able to provide under the 1948 Act.
However, we are talking about a much higher, more intense (and more expensive!) level of care when people - due to illness - are beyond living at home with help, and the only option is 24 hour nursing home care. Currently, the patients themselves pay around £1,000 a week for this. If there were an increase in NI, it would be to help meet these costs, not care in the home.
There is a third choice. People don't get as much of an inheritance as they'd anticipated. The person in need of the care usually has little need of their assets as such by this stage. I doubt that there is much difference in the care they receive if they are self funding, LA or CHC funded,and that is as it should be.
Are you suggesting we should all pay more NI so that those expecting inheritances are protected? Even people from poorer backgrounds who will not inherit anything themselves? How is that fair? I'd happily pay more into the NHS coffers....but not for that reason.
It used to be called saving for your old age, not saving to pass the money on. My parents probably only inherited a few pounds when their parents died. How expectations have changed.
But what then was the point of my Mom saving for her private pension, and the sacrifices made at the time, when all it does is limit the cost to the state contribution?
How is she benefiting from it in her old age?
The points was so that your mother could have a reasonable quality of life in her old age. That is what a pension is for.
So, at nearly 76, I should be hoping to die in 4 years time so that I can be sure of passing on to my daughters what I and my husband worked and saved for all our lives.
Just in case I develop dementia and our money is spent on looking after me.
No, you should be able to have the peace of mind that the contributions you made to the NHS while you worked, will pay for your dementia care as much as they would for cancer/heart conditions etc etc, leaving you free to choose where your hard earned savings will go. To your daughters if that is your wish.
Selffunders have choice of when and where they go into care. I for one would hate to be at the mercy of the state.
I can only disagree slightly in that it should be to provide for something more than if she had spent the contributions whilst she was working but either way that is not what has happened.
There is a third choice. People don't get as much of an inheritance as they'd anticipated. The person in need of the care usually has little need of their assets as such by this stage. I doubt that there is much difference in the care they receive if they are self funding, LA or CHC funded,and that is as it should be.
Are you suggesting we should all pay more NI so that those expecting inheritances are protected? Even people from poorer backgrounds who will not inherit anything themselves? How is that fair? I'd happily pay more into the NHS coffers....but not for that reason.
It used to be called saving for your old age, not saving to pass the money on. My parents probably only inherited a few pounds when their parents died. How expectations have changed.
When you say you would happily pay in more to the NHS but not for those reasons, I don't understand.
First of all, we do not get to choose how the NHS spend our contributions anyway.
More importantly, the system is such that everyone - rich or poor - can get treatment, even though they pay different amounts in. Some rich people may choose to go private but there is no compulsion to do so, therefore you could argue that poorer people are already 'subsiding' them. Would an increase, in line with earnings, be any more unfair than that?
It would still be preferable than people being forced to spend their whole savings (whether they had planned to pass it to their children or not) on their healthcare when wrongly denied CHC because the NHS can't afford it.
My parents did not inherit anything either, but I don't see how that is relevant. Nowadays, as a result of property becoming more attainable in the last 50 years or so, more people have some sort of assets by the end of their life. Whether or not their children 'expect' to inherit something is also not the point. Everyone has the right to spend their earned/saved money as they wish, including how they leave it after their death, be that to their children/grandchildren or otherwise. Illness should not alter that.
No, Saffie, I agree we don't "hope" to die at 80, or at any age come to that... but I do feel that I would prefer to die in my eighties of a heart attack, than to face the prospect of living into my nineties with Alzheimer's - quite apart from the financial aspect.
This illness was my worst nightmare for my mother, and would be my worst nightmare for my husband or me - or for my daughters when their time comes.
If in addition my illness cost thousands, and used up all the money I had hoped to pass on to my daughters, I feel it would be even more a reason not to want to live for years and years in poor health...
Last edited:
I disagree with this on so many levels it is difficult to know where to start!
In no particular order
- If you developed early onset AD/ MS/ MND/ etc etc, are you seriously saying you would rather pay for your own care? That care could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds over the years, paid for by selling your house.
- Self-funders money may run out, so then you would be at the 'mercy of the state' as you put it.
- 'Choosing where to go into care'. Care homes do not vary hugely. It is not as if state subsidised patients have to go to some sort of 'workhouse' while self-funders are in 5-star hotel luxury. In reality, they are usually in the same home, but the self-funders are just paying more for it (including subsidising others) Wouldn't you rather be state-funded - getting the same care for nothing!
- More expensive homes are not always better, and similarly cheaper homes are not necessarily 'worse' in terms of the actual care.
- Choosing when to go in? That is usually dictated by the illness anyway, but why would you want to go in earlier than needed?
- Still don't really understand being at the mercy of the 'state'. Presumably you mean social services. But, If you qualified for CHC, would you not want this state funding from what the NHS??!!!
Having seen the situation from both sides, I can assure you that being a self-funder is not the great advantage you seem to think it is.
Last edited:
You sum it up perfectly - the illness itself and the resulting financial 'punishment'.
.
Yes, the illness certainly but the punishment - for whom?
Not for the person who is being cared for.
Not necessarily. My father is now getting free care an NHS unit. It cannot be faulted and is far superior to what he was paying £1,000 a week for in a private home. It is just a pity that not everyone can get free care when they deserve it.
If I needed a CH in such circumstances, the thought of what would happen to my assets would be the least of my concerns. And if I had a spouse, the house would be disregarded.
My mum self-funded from a pot of £220K and modest pensions for eight years. There was a decent amount left at the end as my inheritance. Thanks Mum and Dad
LOL at the suggestion that care homes do not vary hugely. Someone must end up in the horrible ones - and I'm betting it's not the self funder.
I wouldn't want to go in later than needed. Read some of the cases on TP and see how often that happens when social services are involved in the decision
CHC and LA funding are two completely different issues.
Oh well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then
Can I just add, I am pleased your father is receiving CHC, but his problems are probably much more serious than most who move into a CH, otherwise he would not have been awarded CHC.
Last edited:
