Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
SarahBell

Nhs National Homes Ripoff Prog

Recommended Posts

I hope you never have to arrange for one of your parents to go into a nursing home because they are suffering from some awful disease. The NHS was supposed to care for people from the cradle to the grave. Anyone who needs nursing care because they are sick has to fight for funding because otherwise their needs are classed as social care rather than illness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Sunday I think - about how the sick and elderley are having to sell their homes to pay for care rather than give the house/cash to their children who are forcing them into homes rather than lovingly caring for them at home.

Having your cake and eating it seems to be top of the preferred menu these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be contentious but....

There are a lot of people who want to take take take, but not give anything back into the system.

Too many takers and not enough givers and the system collapses.

Why should be people not pay as much as they can towards their care in their twilight years if they have money/assets that would allow them to do so?

What right do they have to say "No I won't sell my house to pay for it, I want it for free" ?

Why should they be able to hold onto a house they own that is worth loads of money while trying to get means tested benefits?

I know that they have some money grabbing offspring but that is no reason that they shouldn't pay if they can.

Spongers.

Fair enough if they really don't have money/assets to pay for it, then that is where the welfare state should exist to step in when NEEDED and provide. Not when WANTED.

Edit to Add:

If people who can pay don't pay then it leaves far less money in the pot for those who really need the services. Its the same as people who work 'cash in hand' and claim benefits. They take some of the pot that could be used for people who are genuinely in need.

Edited by non-FTBer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Sunday I think - about how the sick and elderley are having to sell their homes to pay for care rather than give the house/cash to their children who are forcing them into homes rather than lovingly caring for them at home.

Having your cake and eating it seems to be top of the preferred menu these days.

Not we see how Gordon plans to solve the pensions crisis of his own making. Asset confiscation on a massive scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be contentious but....

There are a lot of people who want to take take take, but not give anything back into the system.

Too many takers and not enough givers and the system collapses.

Why should be people not pay as much as they can towards their care in their twilight years if they have money/assets that would allow them to do so?

What right do they have to say "No I won't sell my house to pay for it, I want it for free" ?

Why should they be able to hold onto a house they own that is worth loads of money while trying to get means tested benefits?

I know that they have some money grabbing offspring but that is no reason that they shouldn't pay if they can.

Spongers.

Fair enough if they really don't have money/assets to pay for it, then that is where the welfare state should exist to step in when NEEDED and provide. Not when WANTED.

Edit to Add:

If people who can pay don't pay then it leaves far less money in the pot for those who really need the services. Its the same as people who work 'cash in hand' and claim benefits. They take some of the pot that could be used for people who are genuinely in need.

Wait a moment, what about those who are now 65+ who have paid tax and national insurance all their lives based on the promise that the then newly formed NHS would look after them in their old age. These people have certainly "given" all their lives and when they need to take they would reasonably expect for the promise to be delivered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a moment, what about those who are now 65+ who have paid tax and national insurance all their lives based on the promise that the then newly formed NHS would look after them in their old age. These people have certainly "given" all their lives and when they need to take they would reasonably expect for the promise to be delivered.

Yes... and no.

Of course if you've contributed then you are entitled to something back, but it depends what that soemthing is: Personal/social care is extremely costly. That's OK if only a few people need it. If you have 600K (and growing!) people with Alzheimers, then we have a problem. It would be nice if we as a nation had enough cash for this, but I doubt we do.

That said, lay off the legions of other public sector workers and it might be do-able.

If some clever chap could invent a robot that i) washed people, ii) dressed people, iii) checked the cooker wasn't left on, and iv) provide reassuring talk and memory exercises, you'd be an extremely wealthy person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points. I plan people's Wills and every day I hear somebody say "The bloke next door spent all his money and never bought a house and he will get his care for free, that's what I'm against". Truth is that's only part of what people are against of course, they also hate the idea of their kids inheriting next to nothing from their brick pile.

My own view is simple - I think people should contribute to their care costs. However, if my wife went into care in later life I don't see why I should pay for it - we are seen as, and taxed as, individuals in life so she can fund her care out of her own assets, not mine. The way round this is to change the ownership of your property to tenants-in-common and leave your half in trust. It is then not her assets and doesn't fall within the means test. (imho - seek professional advice!)

But my main point here is that I think you have got the wrong idea about this programme on Sunday. They are talking about the NHS taking people's homes illegally - a very different thing. If you have to fund your own care it is the local authority, not the NHS, who force you to cough up the money. I can only guess that the programme is about instances where the NHS are having to treat or stabilise someone long term and still forcing them to pay - which will be an absolute scandal if it is the case.

The NHS's job is to stabilise you then hand you over to the local authority. Long term care is the responsibility of the local authority. While you are being looked after by the NHS you should pay nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Sunday I think - about how the sick and elderley are having to sell their homes to pay for care rather than give the house/cash to their children who are forcing them into homes rather than lovingly caring for them at home.

Having your cake and eating it seems to be top of the preferred menu these days.

I presume you mean the children being selfish - forcing their parents into homes?

There are maybe some children who do this. However i think you don't see how much commitment it takes to looking after someone who has a long term illness. It is incredibly stressful, horribly upsetting and it someone requires 24 hour care - it can be incredibly demanding. It's a very romantic ideal where somebody can look after a parent/ loved one. I look after a 55 yr old man who has MS and is in the later stages of it. I've worked in nursing homes and residential, and looked after terminally ill patients at home during the night so their families can sleep.

I should imagine it is a heartbreaking descision to put someone into a nursing home, but what do you do with somebody who becomes violent towards you because you have suggested they have a bath due to their condition. Could you cope with somebody who asks you the same question 20 times a minute. It is emotionally and physically draining looking after people who are unable to look after themselves - it must be even worse if you are related to them - absolutely heartbreaking. Being looked after at home does not mean they are better off. There are good carers and some not so good, but most of them i know do it because they love the job. You couldn't do it otherwise. Most carers i know treat the residents/patients like they were their own grandparents. What is better to be looked after by a relative who is becoming resentful - due the the stress, and lack of time out that they get from the situation, or being cared for by people who have chosen to do the job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a moment, what about those who are now 65+ who have paid tax and national insurance all their lives based on the promise that the then newly formed NHS would look after them in their old age. These people have certainly "given" all their lives and when they need to take they would reasonably expect for the promise to be delivered.

I think that any welfare based system should be paid into not on the basis that you have a right to get out what you put in, but that the system will be there if you ever need it.

If you have a house worth a lot of money that you COULD use to pay for your care then why shouldn't you?

The welfare state should be there as a safety net for all when they need it. Those that abuse it just make it less effective in doing what it should be there for.

I pay plenty of tax and NI, and always have done. I've never claimed a penny and touch wood I never will.

People shouldn't be trying to scrounge money back out of the system just because they have paid into it, they should only be asking for money from the system when they NEED to.

If I was disabled, unemployed, long term sick etc I would use the money I have before claiming any benefits. That is the way the system is meant to work. Its not ASU insurance, its just a safety net.

Its the same when you need care when you are elderly, its not some kind of savings scheme you've paid into but more of a social fund to assist and care for the most vulnerable in society.

Should a billionaire be able to get amazing care on the NHS for free in retirement because he paid so much tax??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should a billionaire be able to get amazing care on the NHS for free in retirement because he paid so much tax??

Well this is a huge point of concern isn't it?.

Yes, the billionaire should receive amazing care, definitely. He paid HIS contribution and he gets the same service. The contribution differs, not the service, surely?

Otherwise it's not national insurance at all, it's charity. I have no problem with charitising all the services the government provides. But you would get a huge revolt as the comfortably off middle-class would have to pay for their own hospitals.

This the huge problem with the "welfare state": some see it as a national insurance (which is problematic as many hugely subsidise the contributions of others), while others see it as "charity" (which is problematic as the people giving into the system have no say over how the money is sent and people have developed a sense of entitlement).

The dilemma is that whether or not you develop Alzheimer's, Parkinsons or some vascular dementia (i.e. following stroke) is down to chance. Some guy dies, his 400K house goes to his kids. Some guy gets AD, in hospital for 3 years, house all but gone, his kids get nowt. Both paid the same amount of tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is a huge point of concern isn't it?.

Yes, the billionaire should receive amazing care, definitely. He paid HIS contribution and he gets the same service. The contribution differs, not the service, surely?

Otherwise it's not national insurance at all, it's charity. I have no problem with charitising all the services the government provides. But you would get a huge revolt as the comfortably off middle-class would have to pay for their own hospitals.

This the huge problem with the "welfare state": some see it as a national insurance (which is problematic as many hugely subsidise the contributions of others), while others see it as "charity" (which is problematic as the people giving into the system have no say over how the money is sent and people have developed a sense of entitlement).

The dilemma is that whether or not you develop Alzheimer's, Parkinsons or some vascular dementia (i.e. following stroke) is down to chance. Some guy dies, his 400K house goes to his kids. Some guy gets AD, in hospital for 3 years, house all but gone, his kids get nowt. Both paid the same amount of tax.

IMHO the welfare state should have a clearer remit to clear up what people are and are not ENTITLED to.

They should also restate exactly what it is there for, and ensure it is used for those purposes only.

IMHO it should be there only for when people NEED it.

Pensions are a bit different as you make contributions expecting returns. For other things like the NHS / Care for the elderly it should be something that you plan and hope not to need.

The dilemma is that whether or not you develop Alzheimer's, Parkinsons or some vascular dementia (i.e. following stroke) is down to chance. Some guy dies, his 400K house goes to his kids. Some guy gets AD, in hospital for 3 years, house all but gone, his kids get nowt. Both paid the same amount of tax.

No dilemma to me there.

Once I die (I'm a bit of a realist and not afraid of my own mortality) I will leave whatever I leave behind.

I am responsible for me while I am alive, once I'm gone then I can leave instructions (a will) to dictate what happens to whatever is left.

If someone who has a £400K house does not sell it, and the welfare system (aka taxpayer) has to pay for all of his care then the kids are receiving their £400K inheritance courtesy of the taxpayer, not their father. Their father would have been overall (probably, unless very wealthy and paying loads of tax) a drain on the welfare state rather than a contributor.

If people have EXPECTATIONS of using the system in this way then they will need to be prepared to pay loads and loads more tax.

If you divide people into two camps:

  • People who get more from the system than they've paid in taxes

  • People who pay more in taxes then they cost the system

If everyone expects to get more out than they pay in then the system can never work.

In reality due to abuse of the system and public sector innefficiency the majority of people need to pay in more than they ever get back.

Couple that with the coming population decline and the boomers retirement and the system is fckd if it is not changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you can't expect people to pay twice - once for other "poor" people's care, and once more for your own care - either through private insurance plans or the sale of property.

Bear this in mind - the "social services" budget is over 100 billion pounds pa. Some goes on pensions, some goes on uemployment benefit, some on disability benefit. A lot of that money is spent of people who have been happy not to save or build up any kind of asset. They get the same benefits as people disabled from birth. People who work hard and save something - anything - get that taken back from the state in the event of their falling ill and needing "social" or "personal" care.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 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.