Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Elderly Couples Face Paying £100,000 For Care

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/8606749/Elderly-couples-face-paying-100000-for-care.html

Paul Burstow, the health minister, ruled out introducing a new NHS-style free national care service for all, and urged the public to accept “the nasty truth” that all but the poorest will have to pay for their own care.

Plans to be published on Monday are expected to propose a limit on how much individuals pay towards the cost of a care home place, meals on wheels, home adaptations and visits from helpers. The government would then step in to cover costs above this cap, which is expected to set at between £30,000 and £50,000.

The aim of the proposal would be to ensure that individuals do not have to sell their homes to meet “catastrophic” residential care costs that can exceed £300,000 in extreme cases.

But The Daily Telegraph understands that any cap would operate on an individual basis, meaning that a husband and wife could still face combined costs potentially running to £100,000.

So effectively everyone on low pay will have to sell their house?

Meanwhile if you've never worked you get it all for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So effectively everyone on low pay will have to sell their house?

Meanwhile if you've never worked you get it all for free.

So is the better answer that if you have never worked you get sent to the poor house for a lower level of care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the better answer that if you have never worked you get sent to the poor house for a lower level of care?

The sad truth is that the cost of care, plus all the other out of control benefits and public sector salaries, means we are headed for a default. This care isnt going to happen for a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course what else did you expect?

No point in saving or being 'prudent' in the words of Gordon Brown, might as well spend the lot.

...the joke is....when was Brown ever prudent with taxpayers money...?... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad truth is that the cost of care, plus all the other out of control benefits and public sector salaries, means we are headed for a default. This care isnt going to happen for a lot of people.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the better answer that if you have never worked you get sent to the poor house for a lower level of care?

If you are healthy then yes and poor house is over dramatic. Should someone who has contributed expect a higher level of care? Of course they should-why wouldn't they? Oh and BTW I really feel that it is time I could buy long term care insurance in the UK. I could in the US and, whilst fairly expensive, it brought peace of mind. In fact if I can't get it here shortly then I am f0ckin off back to Uncle Sam if owt serious happens to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are healthy then yes and poor house is over dramatic. Should someone who has contributed expect a higher level of care? Of course they should-why wouldn't they? Oh and BTW I really feel that it is time I could buy long term care insurance in the UK. I could in the US and, whilst fairly expensive, it brought peace of mind. In fact if I can't get it here shortly then I am f0ckin off back to Uncle Sam if owt serious happens to me.

I even wonder about private insurance. Often insurance companies miss the fact that as more people live longer, and there are fewer young people to support them, you get two things happen. Costs of providing that health care rise. Return on investment falls, which is troubling because insurance companies need to invest your money for when your claim becomes due. If insurance companies get the price right, only the very rich can afford the premiums. If they get the price wrong, ie too low, they go bust and you dont get your health care paid for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£100,000?....chicken feed as Boris would say....its what they will told to live on too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that £30-50,000 contributed via the existing tax system over a working lifetime, given that not everyone needs expensive residential care anyway (and nor will they in the future despite all the handwringing to the contrary for a number of reasons) would cost more than £5-10 per month and quite possibly even less than that. Let's say 2 Starbucks coffees a month should cover it.

Another thinly disguided tax grab/transfer from the 'middle' to the rich I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/8606749/Elderly-couples-face-paying-100000-for-care.html

So effectively everyone on low pay will have to sell their house?

Meanwhile if you've never worked you get it all for free.

So whats new. If you have a house and savings you already have to pay the full cost of care under the current system

Of course quite how individuals are supposed to pay for the cost of their education, pensions, houses and care out of a declining net income seems all but beyond the ken of the clowns who run this country

One assumes this little levy is going to be raised not only the 1 in 4 women and the 1 and 7 men who need the care but also on the rest of the population who quietly snuff it without putting to great a burden on the taxpayer.

A tax is a tax is a tax no matter how you try to dress it up. In 25 years time you will all have paid into this scheme only to find the money has mysteriously disappeared.

Personally I would rather make my own arrangements than rely on a state that might or might not come up with the goods when I need it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that £30-50,000 contributed via the existing tax system over a working lifetime, given that not everyone needs expensive residential care anyway (and nor will they in the future despite all the handwringing to the contrary for a number of reasons) would cost more than £5-10 per month and quite possibly even less than that. Let's say 2 Starbucks coffees a month should cover it.

Another thinly disguided tax grab/transfer from the 'middle' to the rich I'm afraid.

No of years working = 40. Number of months in 40 years = 480.

Ten pound a month = £4800.

Hmm, somewhat short of 30k. And given that the average care costs are going to be much much higher than that, and are increasing at a rate faster than inflation, I suggest you think again.

£200 a month takes you to just shy of £100k. It would be interesting to know what the average care costs are per head of population going forward.

But given all the things that we spend our money on, police, schools roads, tv shows, football, etc, I suggest £200 a month is not an affordable figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

Of course quite how individuals are supposed to pay for the cost of their education, pensions, houses and care out of a declining net income seems all but beyond the ken of the clowns who run this country

snip

we pay for everything. who else is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the real question is, when we cease to be able to afford everything, what do we cut?

we dont..we borrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So whats new. If you have a house and savings you already have to pay the full cost of care under the current system

Of course quite how individuals are supposed to pay for the cost of their education, pensions, houses and care out of a declining net income seems all but beyond the ken of the clowns who run this country

One assumes this little levy is going to be raised not only the 1 in 4 women and the 1 and 7 men who need the care but also on the rest of the population who quietly snuff it without putting to great a burden on the taxpayer.

A tax is a tax is a tax no matter how you try to dress it up. In 25 years time you will all have paid into this scheme only to find the money has mysteriously disappeared.

Personally I would rather make my own arrangements than rely on a state that might or might not come up with the goods when I need it

+1

Own arrangements are far preferable to this sort of system which is clearly going to collapse. If my own arrangements also go tits up I'll have propofol, midazolam and atracurium in reserve, no way I'm going to a 'home'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/8606749/Elderly-couples-face-paying-100000-for-care.html

So effectively everyone on low pay will have to sell their house?

Meanwhile if you've never worked you get it all for free.

My mother has already paid around £173K for hers.

Nearly 4 years of her total income (4 x £12K pa) + an annuity costing £125K, which guaranteed to cover the difference between her income and the fees until she dies.

With IRs as they are, that annuity would not be available now.

However, it's already shelled out more than we paid for it on her behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mother has already paid around £173K for hers.

Nearly 4 years of her total income (4 x £12K pa) + an annuity costing £125K, which guaranteed to cover the difference between her income and the fees until she dies.

With IRs as they are, that annuity would not be available now.

However, it's already shelled out more than we paid for it on her behalf.

Mrs Bear, thanks for putting some real figures up there.

It really does show the scale of the problem. Presumably it is the insurance company paying the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mrs Bear, thanks for putting some real figures up there.

It really does show the scale of the problem. Presumably it is the insurance company paying the difference?

Yes, fees are now around £45K a year.

I think she (or her Attorneys, 2 of my siblings) paid the full fees for the first few months until they took out the annuity. It takes a while for them to work out their risk (doctor's report etc.) They take the risk on how long she'll live, though I think that if she'd died in the first 2 or 3 months they would have refunded much of it.

However, they apparently lost out some time back. She went in at 89, is now 93.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be acceptable to the insurance company. AFAIK the life expectancy once entering a nursing home is in the order of months rather than years.

Not so sure about that. In my mother's section of her home (out of 9 of them ) there are still 2 who were there when she arrived, i.e. 3 of them for nearly 4 years so far.

It was well over a year before any of the original 9 died, and she was 100.

Mind you this is a specialist dementia home, so maybe a mite different from just nursing. One or two have been relatively young. One was only about 60, poor thing. :( She eventually had to be moved elsewhere, too difficult.

Mostly they're at least late 70s and often late 80s+.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure about that. In my mother's section of her home (out of 9 of them ) there are still 2 who were there when she arrived, i.e. 3 of them for nearly 4 years so far.

It was well over a year before any of the original 9 died, and she was 100.

Mind you this is a specialist dementia home, so maybe a mite different from just nursing. One or two have been relatively young. One was only about 60, poor thing. :( She eventually had to be moved elsewhere, too difficult.

Mostly they're at least late 70s and often late 80s+.

.

Most care homes only deal with dementia patients now. The bulk of the physically infirm are kept in their own homes as long as possible by social services. It is also dementia patients that run up the biggest costs as some are physically fit for their age and can require round the clock care for years. By contrast most of those who are failing physically don't last that long once they require care in a home. This is why finding drugs to control the advance of Alzheimers etc is such a huge deal since if care was only needed for the physically frail costs could be slashed by a huge amount. Most families or individuals could care for a physically infirm relative quite easily given a little training, the right equipment and a modicum of support. Coping with someone with dementia is a completely different ball game and it is there that the big problem lies.

BTW if the government are serious about wanting to deal with this issue they ought to be offering tax and other financial incentives to family and friends who could act as carers rather than simply dreaming up new insurance levies which are essentially tax bailouts for the likes of Southern Cross.

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much care does she need?

With pretty bad Alzheimer's, she needs constant supervision, day and night. Wanders around a lot at night. Couldn't be safely left alone now for even half an hour. Also since she broke a hip last year, much more wobbly and liable to fall.

Care home sounds a lot, but actually works out at just over £123 a day, which includes all meals and snacks, a lot of laundry (frequent accidents) , and a very high staff:inmate ratio. Not to mention what must be huge heating bills - the place is always very warm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mrs Bear, thanks for putting some real figures up there.

It really does show the scale of the problem. Presumably it is the insurance company paying the difference?

Yes, thank you Mrs Bear.

However it doesn't show the scale of the problem. It shows one person's story and the high costs of long term specialist care. I mean that will all due respect to Mrs Bear and her personal situation and hope it comes across with that sensitivity.

One would need to know all sorts of data e.g. % of people requiring care of varying degrees and varying mortality rates and so on. For instance, T'interweb gives an average mortality for Alzheimers when diagnosed at different ages for men/women. Not all of those will require specialist residential care for any/all of that time. My old man, for instance, has gone beyond his average mortality expectancy but can (touch wood) still be cared for at home but with close supervision and no external care support as yet and no cost to the overworked 'taxpayer'.

Given the variations in demand within the population this sort of need seems perfectly suited to end of life 'insurance' provision. There are any number of models for providing that as with anything else.

From a purely community cohesion perspective I'd like to think Mrs Bear's mothers needs could be provided, on average, by govt. insurance contributed by the population as a whole, by I recognise others hold a very different view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With pretty bad Alzheimer's, she needs constant supervision, day and night. Wanders around a lot at night. Couldn't be safely left alone now for even half an hour. Also since she broke a hip last year, much more wobbly and liable to fall.

Care home sounds a lot, but actually works out at just over £123 a day, which includes all meals and snacks, a lot of laundry (frequent accidents) , and a very high staff:inmate ratio. Not to mention what must be huge heating bills - the place is always very warm.

Well, yes, dementia is a special (and very expensive) case. Others are the oldies with previous drug / alcohol issues, or learning disabilities. At the risk of sounding callous, there may be light at the end of the tunnel. Breaking a hip carries with it a life expectancy after the event which, whilst is improved by the operation, is significantly reduced and predictable when taken in numbers.

Edit: p.s. I'm surprised the insurance co didn't jack up the prices if she needed specialist dementia care. It could be decades.

Edited by Cash with Nowhere to Go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.