Extortionate self funding costs!!
- Thread starter blueboy
- Start date
Having opened this can of worms I now have to say that Mum has just gone into a very expensive care home which doesn't use self funders to subsidise council funded residents. Not sure that my socialist mind is too happy with this but I know that Mum will be very well cared for. I really feel that this whole area needs to be looked at by government - why should people who have been financially prudent all their lives be expected to help out those who are less so? My parents were never well off but tried to keep money to leave to their children. This isn't now going to happen - and I have no trouble with this at all - it was their money, after all. But, it is so wrong that their hard won savings should potentially be used to subsidise others.
I may have missed something, but I don't think I've come across anyone, on this thread or elsewhere, who has agreed with the concept of care homes effectively forcing self-funders to subsidise other residents. I don't see how it can conceivably be justified.
I also believe that the state should pay the costs of anyone who needs care as a result of a disease. I'm sure that if the situation were properly explained, most people would be prepared to pay more tax if they understood that they would not have to pay for their own care even if they turned out to be one of the increasing number of people who develop dementia, or any other serious condition or disease that meant that they would require care.
And if you were to end your life at a ripe old age having suffered no major disease, you should and probably would be very thankful for that. The fact that you would have paid contributions that helped to fund a safety net for others less fortunate than you would probably not trouble you too much.
I also believe that the state should pay the costs of anyone who needs care as a result of a disease. I'm sure that if the situation were properly explained, most people would be prepared to pay more tax if they understood that they would not have to pay for their own care even if they turned out to be one of the increasing number of people who develop dementia, or any other serious condition or disease that meant that they would require care.
And if you were to end your life at a ripe old age having suffered no major disease, you should and probably would be very thankful for that. The fact that you would have paid contributions that helped to fund a safety net for others less fortunate than you would probably not trouble you too much.
My fear is privatisation of the NHS and I am pretty sure it will happen in my lifetime.It's buckling under the strain,woefully understaffed and again,who will raise taxes?On balance I would prefer to spend my savings on a trip to Switzerland rather than endure the existence my poor old Dad is suffering
Well said, Stanley.
And I'm sure I am not the only one who baulks at the phrase 'social care' when used to describe the needs of people who would be able to prepare their own meals, wash themselves and wipe their own bottoms if only they had not been so badly affected by brain disease.
While agreeing wholeheartedly that the current system is an unjust mess, I think it grossly unfair to suggest that those who qualify for LA funding (and who also, of course, pay almost their entire income towards their care) have been financially imprudent. My parents never had very much money but did the best with the little they had. They were only able to buy a house because my father inherited his parents' property - ironically after they had both died in hospital with dementia. That of course was in the days when dementia was treated as the terminal disease which it is, and not some kind of 'less worthy' condition. My mother still lives in their house which is why it can't be considered as part of my father's assets.
The neglect of last year's King's Fund report has been utterly shameful. We must integrate health and 'social' care and in the long run pay more in taxes to fund it. In the short term I think the system will collapse before any worthwhile action is taken, with terrible results.
Agreed. It's bit like this horrible disease itself... it'll probably take a crisis before anything can change...
Earlier in this thread I linked to a press article in which a large national care home provider said they had split into three groups. One targeted at private residents at the top end of the market, one focused on mental health, and one ordinary.
My feeling is that this arrangement would make it easier to close/hive off the homes in any group.
The group recently closed 7 care homes in Northern Ireland because 'they were no longer viable'
The group currently has £500m debt and is paying £50m /Yr interest.
In case anybody missed the post and to save them searching the link was:-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/09/care-homes-justin-king-four-seasons
My feeling is that this arrangement would make it easier to close/hive off the homes in any group.
The group recently closed 7 care homes in Northern Ireland because 'they were no longer viable'
The group currently has £500m debt and is paying £50m /Yr interest.
In case anybody missed the post and to save them searching the link was:-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/09/care-homes-justin-king-four-seasons
Sadly, it is a fact that the big companies have been actively trying to 'recruit' self-funding residents for years- to the extent of prioritising them over council-funded residents where they could-where 'beds' or waiting lists were concerned. I fear for the future of care for all, regardless of who is funding them.
Sent from my iPhone using Talking Point
Sent from my iPhone using Talking Point
