[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Residential social care === iam so confused - Carers UK Forum

Residential social care === iam so confused

Share information, support and advice on all aspects of caring.
The government as we all know have introduced the green paper on residential social care Andy Burnham is the minister who will guide this consultation paper through parliament (or so he thinks)
I was under the impression that if made law it would enable those who own their own homes to receive residential social care free i have just read Andy Burnhams interview today he states quite clearly that the government are looking at 3 main plans for the residential social care to be free as it is in Scotland ( is it )

1. voluntary insurance scheme .
2. compulsary payment of up to £20-000 paid in installments.
3.the state to pay up to a third we pay 2 thirds obviously.

(4th but keep it quiet remove benefits from the elderly disabled and give it to the elderly disabled who own their own homes master plan number 4)

This payment be it insurance or installments or the elderly paying 2 thirds will only cover the social care element of the residential social care and NOT for ACCOMMADATION SO WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IAM SO CONFUSED -

I was under the impression that the insurance or the £20-000 was to pay for the residential social care but oh no it will NOT cover the accommadation at all- i have quotes from care / rest homes both for STAN and the old doll when we did consider placing them within the residential care home system they quote from £650 - £800 per week (2005/2006) however they also say that if they needed CARE within the home the cost will be raised to reflect the level of care required i have quotes for STAN from 3 care homes from £1-000 - £1-400 per week(2005/2006)
due to his alzheimers he would need extra care .

Am i right in my thoughts that if an elderly disabled person decided to go into a care / rest home and did NOT requier SOCIAL CARE they would not receive any cash help from the government if my asumption is right why should they pay into an insurance scheme voluntary or compulsary if the may still have to sell their home to pay for the accommadation i know of many elderly disabled both family and friends who decided to go into care/rest home long before they were ill or disabled .

Andy Burnham also told of his gran who had her wedding ring stolen from the care home she was using as far as iam concerned that is one of the reasons why many of us dont want to use the social care/rest home system not just re thefts they are generaly poorly run and not fit for purpose if you find a good one you must be lucky .

No mention of carers today why? we as carers should be the first line of "residential "social care we all know that social care costs £25-000 per year even if the elderly disabled person homeowner or not moves into residential social care and pays some of the costs the state will still have to pick up hefty bill why can they not see what good residential social care the eldery can receive within their own home be it their home or rented we often hear from the P.M. and his front bench spokesman / woman that families should accept their responsabilities and they should then be rewarded they say time after time we want the elderly disabled to remain within their own home and be cared for with respect , dignity and compassion that is exactly what 99% of them will receive if they have the luxury of a full time family member who is able and capable of providing residential social care within the elderly disabled persons own home and by doing so we will yet again save the state millions of £`s some of this cash should be paid to carers as a wage for the social care we can provide
I don't really see what this fuss is about selling homes in any case because the people who would lose out would be the offspring of the elderly person, but then if they want to inherit from their parents why would they not expect to care for them aswell in the same way as they were cared for as children, or do I have this all wrong?
I confess to not knowing much about elderly care as my mother is as fit as a fiddle and my father passed away in his 60's so would like to know what is wrong with elderly selling their homes.
Vicky
the problem comes when the homes are joint owned, when my husband has to be placed in a care home, which is not far off, as his illness progresses, who will fund his care?
if we have to, them I would have no choice but to sell our home, and then, where would I live!!
The problem is not clearcut and no-one seems to want to dicuss it.
I already have a "charge" against my home, which means, as I had financial help for a disabled extension to enable me to look after my husband at home for a while, if I sell, I have to pay a considereable amount back to the council.
i went into debt to relieve the government of paying for care, but it looks like I will still lose out when the time comes for the care that can only be provided by a nursing home.
My neighbour was cared for by his wife and son for many years. Eventually, the strain took its toll on his wife , she was suffering from acute stress and anxiety. They took the decision to put him into residential care while she was physically fit enough to go around and find a good residential home - rather than one chosen by social services which could be a lottery .

Her son has paid for the house himself, but decided to put his mum and dad's name on the deeds as he thought it would give them maximum security. Thus the house is considered to be owned by his mum and dad - despite the fact that he paid for it to give them a home. (He lives there too and has no other home.)

They have been told that the council will not seek to claim money from the husband's share of the house while he is alive and his wife is living there, but that they will seek money from his share of the house in the future - e.g. from the sale of the house if they decide to move to a smaller place after her husband's death. His wife finds the house too big to manage and her son has arthritis and can no longer manage the garden.

This all seems awful to me that the council has a claim on part of this house on her husband's death but they have seen a solicitor who confirms the council will seek this money and there is nothing they can do. Is there anything they can do?
Cherish,

I think you neighbor should see a darn good solicitor. If he can prove that he purchased the house, even though he "gifted" it to his parents, there may be some way to transfer it back to his name.

Also, trusts are the way rich folks protect assets from the tax man or being seized. The parents may be able to set the house up "in trust" for him. A solictor would be able to help.
There is another problem here - where even funds raised by the sale of homes will not be enough to pay for residential care for any length of time - take my Mum as an example:

She has too much in savings for the state to pay any part of any residential/nursing care that she may need in the future so will have to fund any/all fees herself - she is 85 and could live for another 10+ years.

I'm not interested in hanging on to her savings or her property in the expection that I might inherit anything rather I would prefer that she use these for her own benefit but current rates for residential homes in our area are £900 - £1100 per week for anything in the 'good' category (anything rated as 'excellent' would be £1100 - £1800 per week). Her savings will last 2-3 years; the sale of her flat would fund her for a further couple of years - so say 5-6 years in all tops. Then when finally she runs out of money the state will step in and home her, but generally this would mean a move to a cheaper council run home - not a good idea for someone with dementia where continuity of care and surroundings could mean the difference between a contented and happy life or a distressed and unhappy one.

I am currently about to start looking into various "insurance" policies that require a lump sum now, with the guarantee of adequate funding for fees for residential care homes at a later date - especially as I don't have any children to look after me if I become incapacitated for any reason and I can't rely on other family members being able to care for me if it became necessary.
I don't really see what this fuss is about selling homes in any case because the people who would lose out would be the offspring of the elderly person, but then if they want to inherit from their parents why would they not expect to care for them aswell in the same way as they were cared for as children, or do I have this all wrong?
I confess to not knowing much about elderly care as my mother is as fit as a fiddle and my father passed away in his 60's so would like to know what is wrong with elderly selling their homes.
Vicky
The issue for older people who are now having to sell their homes to pay for residential care is that they paid tax and NI all their working lives on the understanding that they would receive care from "the cradle to the grave", on this understanding they bought their own homes in the belief that when they died their homes and any savings, their reward for their hard work, would be passed down the generations. Unsurprisingly they feel that the contract which they made with the State throughout their working lives has been broken. I have sympathy with this point of view but as the offspring of a homeowner I personally do not care whether I inherit or not, nevertheless I do believe that a contract cannot be broken retrospectively and this is what has happened to those who are now in need of residential care, by all means rewrite the contract for those who are now working and paying tax and NI but do not subject those who paid their dues to charging.

I also share susie's concerns about what happens when the money runs out, the death toll among elderly people with dementia who were "decanted" from long-stay hospitals to residential care was appallingly high, the very least the State can do is to promise that any placement is for life whoever ultimately picks up the cost.
Yes, I see now, I have been looking at it from too simplistic a view, this is much more complex than it looks.
I do think though there are people out there who have no intentions of looking after their elderly parents but still want to inherit, or am I just a complete cynic?
Vicky Image
The care provided by the NHS in the 1950's and 1960's consisted in the main of former workhouses and TB hospitals converted into geriatric wards. Conditions were absolutely appalling due to the poor funding. As standards of general health care and also specialist care for the elderly have improved, so too the costs have risen, and older people are living far longer. The national insurance scheme was always unfit for purpose because the NHS was a victim of its own success.

What I like about the new proposals is that they spread the costs more fairly - the current system is like playing Russian roulette as most of us won't require long term care, but those who do are financially ruined - whether their family have been carers or not. I would rather spread it out fairly than take pot luck.
What I like about the new proposals is that they spread the costs more fairly - the current system is like playing Russian roulette as most of us won't require long term care, but those who do are financially ruined - whether their family have been carers or not. I would rather spread it out fairly than take pot luck.
At the cost of taking AA, and undoubtedly DLA, from those who are cared for at home, Excalibur? For people like us that would make caring for my husband at home unaffordable, his AA already does not begin to cover his additional health-related costs, physio, pads, transport, etc. let alone the additional costs of utilities, etc.

There is absolutely nothing fair or logical about removing money intended to meet the additional costs of disability from one group of frequently the poorest people in society in order to subsidise the costs of the wealthier. Many people, already struggling financially to care for family members at home, would find their situation no longer financially viable, hardly an incentive for keeping people in their homes and reducing the number, and therefore the cost to the taxpayer, of people requiring residential care, those people who have no assets would actually cost more not less to care for.

I would like to see the costings on which the proposals set out in the green paper are based, the proportion of the costs of the proposals which is intended to be met out of general taxation and the proportion intended to be met out of the removal of AA and DLA. I suspect that these proposals are intended to be cost neutral, one group of sick or disabled people paying for another, how anybody could conceive that as fair is beyond me.