Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
How would the cost be secured against the "home"(see dictionary definition above). IT IS AN ASSET. It no longer serves the function of being their home. Just as if somebody lives in a rented home, but also owns a property. Try getting that past the DWP as not being an asset. How does a person with dementia have an emotional attachment to a home they no longer live in, when they can't even recognise their own family.
I repeat(as usual) the question, of how are the appropriate levels of costs to be determined at point of incurring those costs? Are people going to be allowed to book into a very expensive care home, and because they are actually penniless, never have to pay anything. because it's supposedly all sorted out after their death?
Problem is that too many people want an expensive service, but don't want to pay for it. 
The only solution would be to provide a base level service for everybody, unless they pay upfront themselves. Even then, with a £86,000 lifetime cap, what happens when then reach it?
Just as in the 1980s, when the costs of care were allowed to be passed off onto the Benefits system(Supplementary Benefit), rather than the Council budget. Because the Benefits system refunded any and all costs, the council didn't have to be too bothered about what the level of costs were, because they weren't paying.
If they have assets, they should be expected to pay. Especially as I keep pointing out, they are unable to benefit in any other manner from that wealth. |
Because nursing care in a residential home is not always permanent. It can be short or medium term after a prolonged hospital stay. It is not unheard of for an individual to be able to return home.
Furthermore living arrangements can be complex, as can house ownership. Elderly siblings sometimes live together, and sometimes elderly parents and children do. The individual who does not require nursing care may have part-ownership of the house or may simply not have anywhere else to go.
Putting a charge on the property against its eventual sale avoids a lot of potential complications, including unpleasant local newspaper stories about councils turning often quite vulnerable people out of their homes in order to pay for its owner’s care.
(Edit) it’s also the case that the capital tied up in the house will most likely increase its value in real terms, whereas if it were liquidated and then banked its value would at best keep pace with inflation but most likely would depreciate in real terms. Keeping the money that will eventually be used to pay off the bill in property rather than in the bank is financially astute.