Walker killed by cattle....

[john87]

11 minutes ago, dumper said:

I believe no one has a right to an inheritance,my parents have worked all there lives to buy there home, now in there fading years that money can be put to good use helping to keep them comfortable, l am proud that now it is my turn to look after my parents as they looked after me and I would not be happy leaving the state to do this job, isn’t this what families do?

sorry for the derail 

I see what you are saying, but the basic problem is twofold.

 

First off it is great that you have such dedication to your parents, and i KNOW you will do all you can to care for them, but, and i hope this does not happen to you, often it is not possible for a person to provide care for their parents as they would wish. You see, as people live longer, their kids can be best part of seventy themselves, and simply cannot provide the care required, indeed, they might need care themselves..

 

In addition, again, with people living longer, more and more people develop one of the various forms of dementia. Now, people with dementia often become aggressive, very aggressive.. Say you have a strong working man, say one of you arb types that have spent your life up and down trees and lugging stuff about. You can be 70, 80 [and more] years old, and still as strong as a horse.. Now, you add in that people with dementia often develop personality changes and can become VERY aggressive and you simply could not care for them yourself, no matter how devoted to them you might be. It would not be safe for you or them to try to do so..

 

When it comes to inheritance, do not forget we are living in a different world now.. When i was younger a working man with a decent job, say british steel or whatever, could buy a nice house and his partner stay home. Thanks to inflation, [the working mans friend] the mortgage might have been a lot for the first few years, but after that, well, the rates would be more than your mortgage..

 

Now though, what hope have the youngsters got?? Unless they inherit a house, or they are both solicitors or doctors, they have NO CHANCE of ever buying a house of their own..

 

I have not got kids, but my partner is a lot younger than me, with no family either.. I want my house to go to her, so that without me to help, at least she will have the means to look after herself in her old age..

 

Does it worry MP's getting the state to buy them a house by falsely claiming they need it to "be near westminster" when their ACTUALLY house might be nearer still??? No, it does not..

 

Do all you can to protect your parents assets, that way, IF they need help and care that you cannot provide in person, you will still be able to provide the best for them [think care home fee "top up" so you can get them the best]

 

john..

[Mick Dempsey]

Purely from a hypothetical point of view if person A. Gets dementia or whatever and they have a house worth a quarter of a million quid. Their specialist care over a number of years costs say 200k, then why should their estate not pay for it?

Why should the taxpayer foot the bill and the children pocket the lot?

[donnk]

2 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Purely from a hypothetical point of view if person A. Gets dementia or whatever and they have a house worth a quarter of a million quid. Their specialist care over a number of years costs say 200k, then why should their estate not pay for it?

Why should the taxpayer foot the bill and the children pocket the lot?

agree the NHS should be banned and everything paid for including benefits scroungers.

[john87]

14 minutes ago, Richard 1234 said:

Section 117 is what I’m aiming to get dad on if they ever let him out of section 3. And the ongoing care cost is the main reason to try and make sure they don’t wriggle out of it. That will save a massive bill if care home time comes.

You will be fine. If/when he is discharged from S3 then S117 is automatic providing a person has an ongoing care need which i presume he will, so no worries there. As for how long S117 lasts though, how long is a piece of string..

 

Some people start off on S117 and later are deemed to get a bit better and not to need care.. Next time they need care they are told the S117 has expired if you like, other people it seems to go on for ever.. Suppose it depends on where you live..

 

Here is what you need to be careful of.

 

Now, all social workers are liars. Maybe not by nature, but they are forced to lie by their bosses. Instead of a sectioning order under the MHA there is an alternative, that is, DoLs, which is "deprivation of liberty safeguards" which has the same effect, a person is detained, but instead of it being under the MHA, it is under the "mental capacity act"

 

Social workers are all for this and when questioned will tell you that; [and they will use these exact words] "it is the least restrictive way of detaining a person] Utter bollocks!! You are either detained or you are not!!

 

They are mad keen to use the MCA and NOT the MHA, as then, they can charge you, as no S117.. it is no accident, trust me..

 

You will have two people in EXACTLY the same position, one on DoL's having to pay the full cost of their care, and the other on an MHA section followed by S117, not having to pay a penny..

 

There was someone across the road from me, they owned a house worth about £275,000 another house worth about £200,000 and they sold their flat in london for nearly £500,000 too. God knows what money they already had. Anyway, they became ajudged to be unable to care for themselves, [despite taking themselves on a 300 mile round trip and organising the sale of the flat] and had home care for about 12 hours a day, every day. This went on for YEARS [until they died]. As they had once been sectioned, they did not have to pay a bean, thanks to S117, despite the fact that they were almost certainly a millionaire..

 

john..

[john87]

24 minutes ago, donnk said:

agree the NHS should be banned and everything paid for including benefits scroungers.

I take it you have private medical insurance?? Great, but i would read the small print if i were you. If you ever need long term care your insurance will not be helping you..

 

You mention "benefit scroungers" David cameron had a disabled kid. He claimed disability living allowance for the kid despite having 20 million pounds in the bank..

 

Is Mr cameron a "benefits scrounger" ????

 

john..

Edited February 18, 2022 by john87

[Sutton]

29 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Purely from a hypothetical point of view if person A. Gets dementia or whatever and they have a house worth a quarter of a million quid. Their specialist care over a number of years costs say 200k, then why should their estate not pay for it?

Why should the taxpayer foot the bill and the children pocket the lot?

It's well known that baby boomers and GenX have all the cash and all the property.

Millenials and GenY are living on the never-never and rent.
I'll take your hypothetical a bit further.

The main assets of the elderly in their twilight years end up going to the state in care fees etc and what happens next?

The next generation have no houses to own and no cash inherited.

That's when Kevin's Cornish Uprising happens. ;0

 

[john87]

30 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Purely from a hypothetical point of view if person A. Gets dementia or whatever and they have a house worth a quarter of a million quid. Their specialist care over a number of years costs say 200k, then why should their estate not pay for it?

Why should the taxpayer foot the bill and the children pocket the lot?

Because they paid national insurance all their lives in case of illness. The government then deemed that things such as dementia were not "illnesses" but "conditions" and dumped the responsibility onto the local authorities instead of the NHS.

 

The hospital where i work had about 850 patients, they were simply discharged and dumped, the most vulnerable in society, bullied, because they could not defend themselves..

 

john..

[Mick Dempsey]

2 minutes ago, john87 said:

Because they paid national insurance all their lives in case of illness. The government then deemed that things such as dementia were not "illnesses" but "conditions" and dumped the responsibility onto the local authorities instead of the NHS.

 

The hospital where i work had about 850 patients, they were simply discharged and dumped, the most vulnerable in society, bullied, because they could not defend themselves..

 

john..

I understand the national insurance part, the problem is when it comes nowhere near covering the individuals cost, multiply that for countless hundreds of thousands of an aging population and you get a shortfall, so money is diverted from other sectors to pay for them.

 

As I said, it’s not my firm viewpoint, just can understand why it happens.

[Ernesto]

58 minutes ago, Sutton said:

It's well known that baby boomers and GenX have all the cash and all the property.

Because us GenX'ers have worked for 35-40 years to flippin earn it.

59 minutes ago, Sutton said:

Millenials and GenY are living on the never-never and rent.

Exactly like I did 'til I was in my thirties.

It's just childish whing and jealousy, "It's not fair".

Sorry for the rant, this kind of thing just annoys me.

[Stool master]

You'll be fine, very unusual for anybody to trampled to death by cows in care homes 😉