Mum's home, not to give it to equity release or a care home.

Mum's home, not to give it to equity release or a care home.

Author
Discussion

Integroo

4,390 posts

26 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Schmed said:
Problem is there is a double standard. People who have worked hard and bought their houses are being stripped of their assets through no fault of their own except needing care in old age. Do fk all and rent your entire life and these insanely expensive fees are all paid for you by the state.

Levelling the playing field and being creative by protecting your assets is just common sense in my view. Most rational people minimise taxes, this is exactly the same, look after your family first and foremost, because the states tentacles are insidious.
No there isn't. If you have half a million in liquid assets and rent you will have to pay. That is not a double standard. It is not a double standard to ask people who have wealth to use it to pay for their own care and not expecting those without it to do so (given the whole point is they cannot afford to do so).

Again, it's bizarre that people that speak with right wing terminology - asset grabs, insidious State - hold such strong left wing views on the State providing care.

Politics of the selfish?

Edited by Integroo on Wednesday 15th May 09:05

WinstonWolf

71,154 posts

180 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
You do realise dementia care can be fully funded by the state? It's just a lottery as to whether the patient receives it or not...
We are talking about what the position should be not what it is.
Ah, so you want to change the parameters of the discussion to suit your case now?

Currently *some* people have to sell their home but not all. Is that OK?

Integroo

4,390 posts

26 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
Ah, so you want to change the parameters of the discussion to suit your case now?

Currently *some* people have to sell their home but not all. Is that OK?
I'm not changing anything that's what we have been discussing all along.

No. I agree the rules should be consistent across all postcodes. Those that can afford to pay for their own care should do so.

WinstonWolf

71,154 posts

180 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
Ah, so you want to change the parameters of the discussion to suit your case now?

Currently *some* people have to sell their home but not all. Is that OK?
I'm not changing anything that's what we have been discussing all along.

No. I agree the rules should be consistent across all postcodes. Those that can afford to pay for their own care should do so.
For all diseases or just some?

Integroo

4,390 posts

26 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
For all diseases or just some?
For end of life care where the person moves into full time residential care on a permanent basis.
Advertisement

Schmed

943 posts

13 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Integroo said:
Schmed said:
Problem is there is a double standard. People who have worked hard and bought their houses are being stripped of their assets through no fault of their own except needing care in old age. Do fk all and rent your entire life and these insanely expensive fees are all paid for you by the state.

Levelling the playing field and being creative by protecting your assets is just common sense in my view. Most rational people minimise taxes, this is exactly the same, look after your family first and foremost, because the states tentacles are insidious.
No there isn't. If you have half a million in liquid assets and rent you will have to pay. That is not a double standard. It is not a double standard to ask people who have wealth to use it to pay for their own care and not expecting those without it to do so (given the whole point is they cannot afford to do so).
It is not a level playing field at all. Either you treat everybody the same and it is free at the point of use like the nhs, or you expect everybody to pay. Anything else is indeed a double standard because you are treating people differently based on their assets, but I fear it is as pointless trying to argue with a brainwashed leftie as it would be trying to command the tide.




Integroo

4,390 posts

26 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Schmed said:
It is not a level playing field at all. Either you treat everybody the same and it is free at the point of use like the nhs, or you expect everybody to pay. Anything else is indeed a double standard because you are treating people differently based on their assets, but I fear it is as pointless trying to argue with a brainwashed leftie as it would be trying to command the tide.
How can people that cannot afford to pay be expected to pay? Is progressive taxation a double standard? Giving only some people council houses? Giving only some people disability benefit? Giving only some people Universal Credit?

'Brainwashed leftie'? You are as ridiculous as mark. Care universally funded by the State is a left wing policy, people paying for their own care is not. Your position is based on your own selfishness, and nothing to do with principle.

WinstonWolf

71,154 posts

180 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
For all diseases or just some?
For end of life care where the person moves into full time residential care on a permanent basis.
So it's the type of building that matters? A person with dementia will die if left alone for even a short period of time, they need full time care to stay alive.

We now have a generation of people with really healthy hearts thanks to bypasses etc but their brains are utterly fked.

In the specific case of dementia we should be asking the question "is it really in the best interests of the patient to keep them alive"?

Isaac Hunt

9,755 posts

152 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
In the specific case of dementia we should be asking the question "is it really in the best interests of the patient to keep them alive"?
Surely it is a denial of my human rights to take my house to pay to keep me alive, when I am denied the right to end my life if I am terminally ill.

I don't want to be kept alive while my brain slowly dissolves, but it is illegal to end my life prematurely.

Integroo

4,390 posts

26 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
So it's the type of building that matters? A person with dementia will die if left alone for even a short period of time, they need full time care to stay alive.

We now have a generation of people with really healthy hearts thanks to bypasses etc but their brains are utterly fked.

In the specific case of dementia we should be asking the question "is it really in the best interests of the patient to keep them alive"?
Sorry, I don't know what point you are trying to make. The question of whether or not individuals with dementia should have the right to assisted suicide prior to losing the ability to consent to it is a separate question altogether.

Oh, and no, a person with dementia will not die if left alone for even a short period of time. Which one of us doesn't understand dementia? Dementia is a disease of varying degrees of severity where sufferers tend to slowly (or indeed in some circumstances quickly) deteriorate. Those with the most severe dementia require full time care, agreed, but there are many with dementia that is much less severe and who can manage some degree of independent living.

SpeckledJim

18,235 posts

194 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Schmed said:
It is not a level playing field at all. Either you treat everybody the same and it is free at the point of use like the nhs, or you expect everybody to pay. Anything else is indeed a double standard because you are treating people differently based on their assets, but I fear it is as pointless trying to argue with a brainwashed leftie as it would be trying to command the tide.
Look at your pay slip. Month-in, month-out, you're being treated differently to every other person on this thread. Some pay less, some pay more.

This is no different.

If you can pay, you pay. If you can't, you don't. Our whole society operates quite happily around this principle. My daughter can't pay for the costs of sending her to primary school. But that's ok, because you and I can pay instead, so we do.

Nowhere on earth has found a better way to do it.

SpeckledJim

18,235 posts

194 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
markcoznottz said:
Should be free at the point of use like the NHS. No other component is means tested i.e. operations. Yes I know certain benefits are means tested re savings, which again is wrong. If others get it for free and you are a taxpayer then the system should be there. Like I say the only reason the issue is raised is because tts like integroo can see an asset to be raided. To ask people to pay for something others get for free is the issue, nothing to do with leftie.
Our society is jam-packed with people getting things for free that others have to pay for.

Been to school? You got it free, but someone else paid for it.

Been to hospital recently? You paid through your taxes, but half the people there got it free.

It's everywhere.

Instead of 'the state' just substitute in the more accurate 'other people'.

"It doesn't matter how rich I am, if I need to live in a home then the state other people should pay for my stay."


WinstonWolf

71,154 posts

180 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
So it's the type of building that matters? A person with dementia will die if left alone for even a short period of time, they need full time care to stay alive.

We now have a generation of people with really healthy hearts thanks to bypasses etc but their brains are utterly fked.

In the specific case of dementia we should be asking the question "is it really in the best interests of the patient to keep them alive"?
Sorry, I don't know what point you are trying to make. The question of whether or not individuals with dementia should have the right to assisted suicide prior to losing the ability to consent to it is a separate question altogether.

Oh, and no, a person with dementia will not die if left alone for even a short period of time. Which one of us doesn't understand dementia? Dementia is a disease of varying degrees of severity where sufferers tend to slowly (or indeed in some circumstances quickly) deteriorate. Those with the most severe dementia require full time care, agreed, but there are many with dementia that is much less severe and who can manage some degree of independent living.
It would be you who doesn't understand the disease. In the early stages people can live alone but by the time it's progressed to the stage that they need full time care they would die quite quickly if left alone.

Integroo

4,390 posts

26 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
It would be you who doesn't understand the disease. In the early stages people can live alone but by the time it's progressed to the stage that they need full time care they would die quite quickly if left alone.
You are painfully annoying in every thread you bother to involve yourself in. That's literally what I just said.

WinstonWolf

71,154 posts

180 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
It would be you who doesn't understand the disease. In the early stages people can live alone but by the time it's progressed to the stage that they need full time care they would die quite quickly if left alone.
You are painfully annoying in every thread you bother to involve yourself in. That's literally what I just said.
You mean I disagree with you? Isn't that the whole point of debate...

I apologise profusely for having a different opinion.

Oakey

23,970 posts

157 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
It wasn't Integroo who said "A person with dementia will die if left alone for even a short period of time, they need full time care to stay alive.". There were no caveats in that sentence.

daimlerv8

1,324 posts

21 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Back in the olden days;
ie the last century.....

There were two types of care home

a)operated by the local authority...for those with little or no assets to pay for care.
b)privately run care homes for those that did not 'fit' group A.

Of course,somebody decided that group A should be done away with,and now we are left with the current shambles where 'granny farming' is solely a commercial business.

WinstonWolf

71,154 posts

180 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Oakey said:
It wasn't Integroo who said "A person with dementia will die if left alone for even a short period of time, they need full time care to stay alive.". There were no caveats in that sentence.
Ah, I didn't realise we were drawing up legal documents, I thought this was a discussion.

Obviously we're not actually drawing up legal documents, I was being facetious.

Oakey

23,970 posts

157 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
It's a pretty bold statement to say that people with dementia will die if left alone for even a short period of time. That old nonce across the road from me that has dementia is left alone regularly and he hasn't died (unfortunately).

Integroo

4,390 posts

26 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Oakey said:
It's a pretty bold statement to say that people with dementia will die if left alone for even a short period of time. That old nonce across the road from me that has dementia is left alone regularly and he hasn't died (unfortunately).
It's not bold, it is just wrong.
"