Body & Soul2 mins ago
Why Can't Those That Own Their Houses Pass Them On To Their Children If They Are Unfortunate To Go Into Care, During Their Final Years?
75 Answers
https:/
It has taken these two hero's predicament to highlight once again the unfairness between those that have struggled to buy their homes and those who chose not to.
It has taken these two hero's predicament to highlight once again the unfairness between those that have struggled to buy their homes and those who chose not to.
Answers
It's nothing to do with adult children not inheriting what they'd like; that's a 'red herring'; it's about the person needing health care, physical or mental, being asked to pay, and not being able to leave what is theirs to whomever they wish. One can try to split off some health care and rename it social care if one wishes, but it fools no one. It's still clearly...
13:44 Sat 10th Nov 2018
If people go onto care they no longer need a house to live in and therefore need to sell it to pay for their living expenses. Living in residential care covers everything food bills heating lighting and so on. Are you suggesting aog that the tax payers should feed someone and pay all 5heir bills for life because they are veterans? It's simply not sustainable is it? Social care is paid for oute of council tax Not general taxes. People who are unwell enough to need nhs care can get their care home and all costs paid for by the nhs via continuing Healthcare. This person is clearly not unwell enough to need that though
It's nothing to do with adult children not inheriting what they'd like; that's a 'red herring'; it's about the person needing health care, physical or mental, being asked to pay, and not being able to leave what is theirs to whomever they wish.
One can try to split off some health care and rename it social care if one wishes, but it fools no one. It's still clearly a health issue.
Need for a house doesn't come into it. They may not have a need for a lot of things but they still own them. It's not the State's job to grab them.
One can try to split off some health care and rename it social care if one wishes, but it fools no one. It's still clearly a health issue.
Need for a house doesn't come into it. They may not have a need for a lot of things but they still own them. It's not the State's job to grab them.
gulliver1
/// Have no fear, when we get the £ 350 million a week next March, { promised from Boris the Bus } to put into the NHS, that will help pay for someones health care. ///
That is a myth, the message on the bus was just a suggestion what some of the money we give over to the EU could be spent on.
/// All he said in his Telegraph column is that leaving the EU will give us more control over ‘roughly’ £350m a week, and it would be good ‘if a lot of that money went on the NHS’. ///
https:/
/// Have no fear, when we get the £ 350 million a week next March, { promised from Boris the Bus } to put into the NHS, that will help pay for someones health care. ///
That is a myth, the message on the bus was just a suggestion what some of the money we give over to the EU could be spent on.
/// All he said in his Telegraph column is that leaving the EU will give us more control over ‘roughly’ £350m a week, and it would be good ‘if a lot of that money went on the NHS’. ///
https:/
I can't claim to understand all the rules and have no dount that they don't appear fair across the board, but I can only speak for myself and my siblings - we never saw what my parents worked hard to pay for as our but theirs.
We would happily have forfeited the house they bought with hard earned money to ensure they had a well cared for old age.
Neither made it to old bones though.
It's a very emotive story of course, everyone's is and I hope the lovely gentleman gets the care he needs.
We would happily have forfeited the house they bought with hard earned money to ensure they had a well cared for old age.
Neither made it to old bones though.
It's a very emotive story of course, everyone's is and I hope the lovely gentleman gets the care he needs.
The underlying "principle" in all of this is that statists in general and socialists in particular love and encourage servility and dependency, and, en revache, hate and will punish independence and self sufficiency.
This philosophy contains an obvious self-contradiction and is self-destructive. Like when everybody's begging who fills the bowl?
When everyone's a beggar there's nobody around to make the bowl.
Innit?
This philosophy contains an obvious self-contradiction and is self-destructive. Like when everybody's begging who fills the bowl?
When everyone's a beggar there's nobody around to make the bowl.
Innit?
gulliver1
/// AOG if what Boris wrote on his bus was only a myth ///
I didn't say it was a myth, I said it was a suggestion, the myth was that it actually promised that the saved money would be spent on the NHS.
Just another couple of corrections Boris didn't actually write it on 'his bus', the bus did not belong to him and the 'writing' was a transfer.
/// AOG if what Boris wrote on his bus was only a myth ///
I didn't say it was a myth, I said it was a suggestion, the myth was that it actually promised that the saved money would be spent on the NHS.
Just another couple of corrections Boris didn't actually write it on 'his bus', the bus did not belong to him and the 'writing' was a transfer.
A well deserved BA to Old_Geezer.
“We would happily have forfeited the house they bought with hard earned money to ensure they had a well cared for old age.”
Couldn’t agree more, Mamyalynne, but what the homeowner wants should also matter.
My dad was always worried this would happen to him, and did in fact happen for a couple of weeks before his death early this year.
While I was busy researching decent care homes, my sister was advocating leaving him where he was because a) he doesn’t have a clue and b) we may get something when he goes!
I think this is yet another example of the ‘haves’ being expected to apologise to the ‘have nots.’
Own your own home, maintain it, but lose it to fund your care.
Don’t own a home, no savings or frittered your money away. Just pay the bare minimum for your care.
Maybe the fairest way would be to say that everyone is entitled to X amount for their care.
Those that can’t top it up, get a council run home. (Having been in one, I personally would rather be dead) Those that can, get to choose whether they use their own money to upgrade or not.
This may also stop the social workers exercising their far reaching powers to dump someone in a home when they don’t want to go into one.
I certainly hope it’s my children who inherit from me. Not social services.
“We would happily have forfeited the house they bought with hard earned money to ensure they had a well cared for old age.”
Couldn’t agree more, Mamyalynne, but what the homeowner wants should also matter.
My dad was always worried this would happen to him, and did in fact happen for a couple of weeks before his death early this year.
While I was busy researching decent care homes, my sister was advocating leaving him where he was because a) he doesn’t have a clue and b) we may get something when he goes!
I think this is yet another example of the ‘haves’ being expected to apologise to the ‘have nots.’
Own your own home, maintain it, but lose it to fund your care.
Don’t own a home, no savings or frittered your money away. Just pay the bare minimum for your care.
Maybe the fairest way would be to say that everyone is entitled to X amount for their care.
Those that can’t top it up, get a council run home. (Having been in one, I personally would rather be dead) Those that can, get to choose whether they use their own money to upgrade or not.
This may also stop the social workers exercising their far reaching powers to dump someone in a home when they don’t want to go into one.
I certainly hope it’s my children who inherit from me. Not social services.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.