OnePlus 5T review: Hands-on
It's an unfortunate fact that many will end their days in a nursing home and the cost of this care is considerable and can quickly deplete someone's life savings and strip them of their other assets like their home.
The issue boils down to whether this care should be funded by the taxpayer for all, or should those that have assets be made to use them up first.
Why should the taxpayer finance care so that beneficiaries can eventually inherit a tidy sum?
Equally, why should one resident pay several hundred pounds per month for their stay while the person in the next room with no assets gets their care provided for free?
What do you think of those that go to devious means to avoid having assets to finance their possible future care costs?
What of those that simply spend their money when they get it and to hell with the future? Do the profligate benefit over the prudent?
"Why should the taxpayer finance care so that beneficiaries can eventually inherit a tidy sum?"
That begs another question - why should taxpayers finance medical care for anyone who could afford to pay for it?
One might argue that we're either running a welfare State or we're not.
I'm not sure how well it will turn out in practice but I do think the theory of recovering nursing home fees from the estate of the person once deceased is sound.
"I do think the theory of recovering nursing home fees from the estate of the person once deceased is sound."
Why is it sound?
I might argue that I have paid into the Welfare state all my working life, have paid local authority taxes when demanded, and should not expect that my heirs should have to repay the cost of the care that was provided at the end of my life.
Go down that road and you'll see people taking all kinds of precautions to ensure that their estate is as small as possible.
Agree with fourm member's post @ 11.06.
One way to avoid the payment is to look after your own, many thousands do. Not all people in care homes need specialised treatment or care, the vast majority could manage quite well with a bit of family support.
'Go down that road and you'll see people taking all kinds of precautions to ensure that their estate is as small as possible.'
Yes, there will and it will be difficult to find ways of countering such selfishness.
People should be responsible for themselves as much as possible. Someone with a large home who needs to go into care is perfectly capable of paying for that care. If we decide to baulk at the idea of selling that home during the life of the owner then recovering costs after death seems quite reasonable to me.
I believe that I am not alone in thinking that my hard work over the years, that leads to me having to rely less on the state than others helps those others to get the help they cannot provide for themselves.
"Yes, there will and it will be difficult to find ways of countering such selfishness."
So, when you've worked hard all your life, paid tax on your income, and have managed to pay off your mortgage by the time you reach old age, you're being selfish in wanting to leave your house to your children, rather than selling it and handing the proceeds over to the State are you?
That ranks pretty high on my list of ridiculous arguments, and it isn't helped by a sanctimonious statement about helping others to get the help they cannot provide for themselves.
I own My own Home but it will not befit me when I am Dead. Yes I think its right that People should to some extent pay for help if they have to go into a Home. If that means that the Home as to be sold, so be it, But I also think that the Costs of the above are a rip off by many running these homes
Saying 'handing the proceeds over to the State' is not something you want to do if you are going to accuse others of 'ridiculous arguments'.
You are not handing anything over to the state. You are using your money to provide the things you want to live your life. If you are lucky enough to drop dead at 103 with never a day sick then you will be able to leave your money to your children. But, if you need care, and can pay for it then you absolutely should.
I won't be lectured about sanctimony by someone who thinks I should support his children rather than him take responsibility for his own needs.
We have a welfare state and most will have paid into it for most of there lives. it is strange that if you are diagnosed a medical problem then you will get free accommodation and free care, but if you are deemed to have a mental problem then cost wise you are on your own. The government collected taxes from the public, they should have set up some sort of scheme to cover this or taken out insurance to cover. The thing is that the government have jumped on the repayment element having seen that ordinary people have the level of equity in their property. Incidentally I believe that the charges that care homes charge is ridiculously high. I read recently that homes charge for food and laundry were charged to the estate for three weeks after a person died, this is apparently a standard contract .
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.