Caring For The Elderly

[chickentikka]

Through work I have been following various media stories and must admit that I am shocked with the general abdication of responsibility for caring for elderly parents - the state should look after them and there is also the expectation that there should not be any alteration to an expected inheritance.

 

If my parents became too ill, frail or mentally incapable of looking after themselves I know that it would be primarily my responsibility to look after them (and my brothers), it might be inconvenient and not what I wanted to do with my life, but they are my parents, I love them and would do my utmost to look after them.

 

So they have to go into a home - well I'd want the best for them - if they are not living in their house and there is no prospect of them returning and you want the very best care then surely you sell it to fund the life you want for them. I want my parents to be safe and happy and certainly have no expectation of an inheritance.

 

I'm so fed up of reading about people who have abandoned their parents, bleat about the cost of basic care, expect the government (which is us the taxpayer) to foot the bill and expect no dent in their expected inheritance.

 

Yes, you are always going to get the genuine needy cases, but why should they have a second class end to their life.

 

The National Insurance contribution we pay is a pathetic pittance towards the benefits we expect the state to fund.

[zico's mum]

I work in a Residential Home for the Elderly as a Care Assistant and I'm horrified at how some (not all) the residents are treated by their families.Once they've been dumped that's it,no more visits except maybe Christmas - or when their health goes downhill when they're out in droves,only to vanish when they recover.We have to battle to get the family to buy a bottle of shampoo or new underwear,often staff themselves will buy such essentials - on the pittance we earn.Other families are of course absolutely brilliant,coming in as often as they can,taking them out for visits,bringing little goodies in - and some will do the same for the next door resident if they are on their own.It's been a real eye-opener.But they are out in hordes when they die.A resident who passed away recently was never visited by family - nieces and nephews as no children - these people would never buy her clothes,toiletries etc,nearly everything she had was passed on when other residents died or clothing didn't fit them.This family came in the day after she died and cleared her room of every single item - including the packs of incontinence pads - goodness knows what they wanted with those.

[sproggie14]

If my parents became too ill, frail or mentally incapable of looking after themselves I know that it would be primarily my responsibility to look after them (and my brothers), it might be inconvenient and not what I wanted to do with my life, but they are my parents, I love them and would do my utmost to look after them.

 

I think, to be honest, that's easier to say if you've not been in that position.

 

I've had experience of this situation twice. Firstly with my Dad. He wasn't elderly but he had mental and physical health problems which made him extremely vulnerable. I was put under so much pressure and basically made to feel like I was a terrible person for not taking him in and caring for him myself. At the time I was working full time and sharing a two bedroom rented flat with my brother so it wasn't possible, nor was it the best thing for him as he needed round the clock supervision. As he was relatively young and had a combo of mental and physical problems, trying to get help for him was incredibly difficult and they told us to put him in a home would cost us in the region of £1000 a week. Dad, at the time, had no home and about £30,000 to his name, the result of a pathetic divorce settlement in which his second wife, who caused most of his problems, then took advantage of them and fleeced him totally. At no point did anyone explain to us what we were entitled to just said that if we wanted him in a home we'd have to find the money. Thankfully he had a decent GP who explained that because he had a certain level of health problems he was in fact entitled to a place in a home paid for by the NHS.

 

Second time was my Grandpa who was 94 and declining with heart problems and kidney cancer. He had two major heart attacks and his mobilty was seriously affected, not least cos when he was in hospital he was sat in a chair and left to rot. Again we were threatened and hassled and they kept trying to discharge him from hospital to have his 93 year old wife also recovering from a heart attack to take care of him. He was incontinent and catheterised so it really would not have been appropriate for him to be cared for by either of his daughters who were both also still working full time anyway. Thankfully I knew from my experience with Dad what he was entitled to and we were able to secure him a place in a care home which was fully funded by the NHS.

 

Caring for elderly relatives is a lovely idea if they don't have specialist care needs but with people living longer it's rare now really that the younger relatives are in a position to do so as they are usually working full time themselves. We pay an enormous amount of tax in this country and I don't think asking for help with care when we're older is too much to ask. If my Grandfather had had to pay for his home for example, it would have left my Grandmother homeless.

[Fee]

I agree completely with the OP, people are far too quick to expect 'the state' to take responsibility and cover all costs. I don't see why we as taxpayers should pay for someone's care so that their relatives can inherit their property.

 

It's not just families, though, old people themselves often set a lot of store on having something to leave to the next generation. My mum worries herself sick that one day she might need residential care and her house would have to be sold to pay for it. None of the family give a monkeys, we just want what's best for her, but having something to leave her children is important to her and she hates the idea of 'the government' getting the money for the home she's worked so hard for all her life. I've tried to reason with her but mum doesn't do 'reasoning'

 

I did mention that she could always move in with us if she gets to the point where she can't manage on her own - but the idea of living with noisy teenagers and all our dogs didn't appeal somehow - she said she'd rather be with sane people her own age

[blackmagic]

I think that is a generation thing. I can remember my gran, my mother and my aunts discussing how much people had left when they died. It was published in the paper.

 

My mother was the same ' No way are they getting my house.'.

 

Despite being confined to bed and virtually immobile,she refused to go into hospital or a home, and nowadays they cannot be forced to.

 

So, she had carers coming in in the morning to get her washed and give her breakfast and leave her sitting in a chair. Another one came in an hour later to put her back in her bed. Then the meals on wheels lady came with her dinner. Another homehelp came to give her her tea and tucking in nurse came to put her to bed.

 

These people also made sure she had her medication.

 

In between there was a physiotherapist and an occupational therapist.

 

The family covered weekends, but we were working during the week and had our own families to look after also.

 

We managed to persuade my mother to go into respite for two weeks but she refused to stay longer. As she had turned night into day she needed someone with her overnight , so we arranged for a night nurse to stay with her. Both of these services were paid for by mother,as my sister looked after her bank accounts etc., but she did not know that she paid for them, as she would not have agreed.

 

We wanted her to have the care that she needed rather than leave an inheritance.

[owl]

It's rather an immediate point here. I'm here caring for my mum at present, and trying to persuade her that she will need carers in daily. My sister, aunt and I have been taking turns to stay here since she came out of hospital. Mum is sure she can cope alone, but I was a care worker both in residential care and home care for many years and know full well that she needs someone in twice a day. She absolutely doesn't want to go into a home and I see no reason at present why she should, if she will only accept that she needs home care. If she needs to be in residential care in the future, this will be a problem not because we would grudge money being spent on her care rather than being left to us, but because she would object to that.

 

If I were nearer I could do the care myself, but we are all too far away and sister is in full time work and is sole breadwinner at present while BIL is doing taxi knowledge. As a last resort, we have discussed converting the garage here into a bedsit for me and the dogs. Mum has a bit of an allergy, and I am absolutely not giving up my girls. I'm still not up to full strength after years of nursing OH, so feel very daunted by the thought of doing it all over again.

 

zico's mum, I know what you mean about relatives. There were 2 cases where people I care for in their homes were so bullied by relatives that we arranged for a solicitor to visit them and make them wards of court with their full agreement. Relatives were demanding that these people sign over savings and in one case a house to them.

 

I've also known a care home owner take all the savings and belongings of a lady who died leaving no relatives. She had in fact left everything to a friend, who of course got nothing. The home owner had obtained power of attorney, against all guidelines.

[cycas]

It's worth remembering that nasty people also get old. Giving up what you want to do with your life for someone you love is hard enough: imagine caring day to day for someone who is actively unpleasant and malicious to you, who has always tried to make your life a misery.

 

My mother did that for her mother in law, my grandmother, but I don't think I could have. I'd have walked away.

 

I agree with you that some people seem to expect the state to do everything, but I do think this issue is more complex than it looks.

 

I would also mention that the current generation of old people is relatively well off, having benefited from rising house prices and a healthy pensions sector.

 

People who are of working age today probably will not get anything like the same spending power in terms of pension when they retire, are renting or struggling with relatively gigantic mortgages, and the younger ones, if they went to university, may also have huge student debts to pay off before they can even begin to save. I don't know - OK parents deserve support, but if someone is expected to give up work to become a carer, and cannot expect to inherit anything, what are they going to do when they themselves are old?

 

This is a conundrum I don't think we know the answer to yet: population growth and much longer lifespans are a whole new challenge...

[chickentikka]

Cycas, I totally agree with what you are saying.

 

People are living longer but not healthier, so they require a significant amount of care for a larger proportion of their life. The country has never been in so much debt, those in their 30's and younger are probably going to end up paying twice - to fund for the current pensioners and themselves as well, and as you said with far more debt than the current pensioners. At the moment the average debt for someone who hits state pension age is £45k (that includes mortgage), in the future who knows.

 

My dad's mum lived with us for a while when I was in my early teens, she had never thought that my mum was good enough for my dad and was a mean old cow and made my mum's life as difficult as possible. Mum has since told me it was the only time in her marriage that she ever seriously considered walking.

 

The birth rate is also declining and there will become a point in the not too distant future when there will be more over 65's than workers - that is just not a sustainable position under the current system.

 

But those who say that the state should pay are so out of touch with reality - the state is us, the taxpayers. The state is currently borrowed up to the hilt due to the 'credit crunch'. World finances are in the really deep dooh dah.

[owl]

I'd just like to point out that the birth rate dropped partly because the government of the day encouraged this. It's not always remembered that in the 50s the threat of over-population was a major concern, and was discussed as much as climate change is today. The government envisaged food shortages if there wasn't a dramatic decline in the number of mouths to feed. They knew perfectly well that there would be a period when the number of seniors would be disproportionate to the number of people of working age, but thought this would be the lesser of two evils. It's true the average longevity has increased, but there have always been many people living into their 80s. They didn't always pop off conveniently at 3 score years and ten. Average lifespan in my family is around 90, and that includes the great grandparents who were born in the 1860s.

 

I'd argue with CT's comment that people are living longer but not healthier. People in their 60s and 70s are generally fitter and more aware of their health than they used to be. They take more exercise and generally do more things. It is surely probable that this will lead to better health after 80.

[Ian]

Actually, whilst I have a dislike for care homes & think that in an ideal world the elderly would be better in their own homes or with family where possible when they do need a care / nursing home I totally disagree with forcing the elderly to sell their homes to pay for it.

 

Why should the tax payer pay for their care? Who said they really do - many of these older people were born in a time when the welfare state & even the health service wasn't what it is today, have worked & paid taxes all of their lives & hence many, will I suspect, have put far more in than they've ever had out of the system over the years (N.I. may be a "pittance" but it's a fraction of the taxes paid!)

 

I would ask why should those, for example, who worked hard, built something for themselves and their children, even if they were not successful / wealthy enough not to have to sell their home to fund care then be forced to give it all up whilst those who rented or didn't save get everything paid for?

 

It seems to me that we can pay foreigners to come here (which I don't necessarily object to) or go home & set up businesses (which I do) but we can't help our own elderly (or seriously injured soldiers - maybe we shouldn't fight the wars if we can't / wont pay the price of helping them afterwards) at a time when they are most in need

Edited August 3, 2009 by Ian

[cycas]

Why should the tax payer pay for their care? Who said they really do - many of these older people were born in a time when the welfare state & even the health service wasn't what it is today, have worked & paid taxes all of their lives & hence many, will I suspect, have put far more in than they've ever had out of the system over the years (N.I. may be a "pittance" but it's a fraction of the taxes paid!)

 

 

As I understand it, that's not how it works. The Welfare state is funded on current contributions. There is no savings account with all the contributions of today's pensioners in it: that money was spent many years ago on their own parents and grandparents - who had no contributions saved up, because that was before the welfare state, so had to rely on their children to look after them. And half the parents and grandparents of the generation before *that* had no savings because they were Victorian poor and could barely afford to eat a lot of the time.

 

I would ask why should those, for example, who worked hard, built something for themselves and their children, even if they were not successful / wealthy enough not to have to sell their home to fund care then be forced to give it all up whilst those who rented or didn't save get everything paid for?

 

Because a lot of the people who saved nothing didn't do so because they couldn't be bothered: they ended up that way because they were unable to do so, or unlucky, or for that matter, because they gave the time when they could have been working and earning, to support elderly or disabled family members themselves. It's impossible to sort out the 'deserving poor' and only support them and not the rest.

 

You can't really dump a bunch of grannies on the streets and tell them that they will get nothing because they failed to save when they were 30. Nor can you euthanase people that cannot support themselves. Therefore, the only real option is to pay for their care.

 

If you insist that all old people, even those that have assets, should get everything they need from the state throughout their old age, without having to make a contribution, then so far as I can see, the only way to pay for that will be for people working now will have to pay far more in contributions to support them, thus making it even more difficult for them to save enough to look after themselves in future.

 

Oh, and it would also make even more of a mess of the housing market if more people in nursing homes were hanging onto houses 'as their children's inheritance'. Empty houses are a liability and reduce the pool of housing for the people who are paying today's NI contributions so they can't afford to buy homes of their own.

 

The welfare state is intrinsically unfair, because the able, talented and hardworking always have to subsidise the feeble, useless or lazy. On the other hand, very often the able, talented and hardworking do start off with huge (unfair) advantages, so it is perhaps reasonable to expect more of them.

[Ian]

As I understand it, that's not how it works. The Welfare state is funded on current contributions. There is no savings account with all the contributions of today's pensioners in it: that money was spent many years ago on their own parents and grandparents - who had no contributions saved up, because that was before the welfare state, so had to rely on their children to look after them. And half the parents and grandparents of the generation before *that* had no savings because they were Victorian poor and could barely afford to eat a lot of the time.

 

Whilst it's true that there is no savings account & the money was spent I fail to see what evidence there is that this money was "spent on their own parents and grandparents" - as you say yourself there was no welfare state, they relied on themselves or their own or went hungry, the health service wasn't what it is today - so where did the money actually go?

 

 

Because a lot of the people who saved nothing didn't do so because they couldn't be bothered: they ended up that way because they were unable to do so, or unlucky, or for that matter, because they gave the time when they could have been working and earning, to support elderly or disabled family members themselves. It's impossible to sort out the 'deserving poor' and only support them and not the rest.

 

You can't really dump a bunch of grannies on the streets and tell them that they will get nothing because they failed to save when they were 30. Nor can you euthanase people that cannot support themselves. Therefore, the only real option is to pay for their care.

 

I certainly didn't say that anyone should be dumped on the street or euthanised (against their wishes - but that's a different discussion), that those who were unlucky or whatever shouldn't be cared for - ONLY that those who were lucky and who have therefore probably already paid their fair share of taxes should not be doubly punished by now having their home taken from them. Nor did I suggest that their home should stand empty - only that it is their home to do as they please with, not the Goverments to steal

 

Your remark on the "deserving poor" appears entirely contradictory to me as deciding who are the "deserving poor" and paying only for their care is by implication exactly what you advocate doing here.

 

The counter argument doesn't appear to consider that someone who is "deserving poor" might well have children of wealth and yet it appears to me that the state would still have to fund their costs whilst taking the home of someone else with only fairly modest assets. (the more wealthy generally employ accountants & lawyers to "play the system" throughout life and maximise what they keep!)

 

As for the only option I think that is still open to question - there are all sorts of other things we could choose not to spend so much on - MP's excessive expenses, all manner of Govt, Council / other service inefficiency, expensive wars in foreign lands that some would argue are not even our fight (this is not necessarily my own view), bailing out banks that have made billions over the years from situations that they themselves created (no one forced Lloyds to by Halifax for instance)etc - are any of these really more important than the care of our elderly?

 

If you were to argue that everyone should have critical illness cover (for example) that might be another debate but I've heard nothing to make me believe that some should be funded in old age others not, despite paying taxes throughout their lives

Edited August 3, 2009 by Ian

[cycas]

What I'm trying to say is that because you can't hope to sort out people who are 'deserving' you kind of have to pay for anyone who would otherwise not have anywhere else to go, whether they are 'deserving' or not.

 

But what you can practically do is say that the state won't pay for care for someone who can afford it themselves, because it's really easy to check if they have assets or not.

 

I do think you have seriously underestimated the costs of providing complete lifetime care. Although I'm sure you are right that there is misspending (government IT projects would be another good target for cuts!) , I'm not sure that relatively small amounts such as MP's expenses, or even the entire defence budget, would come close to covering the costs of providing proper lifetime care: do you know how much nursing homes cost? It's just insanely boggling amounts!

 

I'm not trying to argue for anything, as I really don't know what the answer is. I don't see how pensions aren't going to go down and down, and probably won't even exist by the time I retire, nor do I have a hope of being able to save enough to really provide for my own old age.

 

Most of my family die young, so I'm rather hoping to get away with doing that rather than end up tied to a chair being fed once a day by some poor sod who has 50 other old wrecks to try to cater to. I'm thinking bottle of whisky and midnight swim while I can still totter down the beach.

[lester]

Well I have some weird genetic kerotype thing that makes all upper body muscles weak and withery and we are not expected to make it past middle age. 20years passed the best before date now then. ( guinnes book or records anyone?)

So I am most unlikley to get any more dependent than I am now.

No we have a family tradition of " Not being burden" which is actually some kind of orwellian newspeak. It was started by my Great granddad who retired around 40 and the spent the rest of his life " not being a burden" ( even making my gran dress up as a maid to answer the door) I spent most of my childhood being dragged around the country on the merest whim of my gran in her old age ( succumbing to bronchitis on one occasiom through sitting in a pumch chai r on Crewe station for several a hours in a snow storm.

My parents died within a fortnight of each other after my father being bedridden for two years and my mother driving herself into the ground to look after him. I had to up sticks and move into the area for the bigger jobs ( Initially ) !!!!!!

Now its my turn!

I just want to sit back and let the kids run around doping stuff and the grandkids come and dote on me, feed me foxes glaciers mints. They can have the house if they can stop it falling down and put me in a home with a load of silly old wimmin ( cant be any worse than those that keep coming around here to " see if I am alright " and then not going away for days and confusing the dog!

Trouble is I seemed to have been too busy to procreate and it used to be fun claiming to be " Child free". But since then I have found out its a result of th e genetic weirdness and now I have no one not to be a burden for.

I think I should be a burden on the state, they seem to have had all of my money and still want some more so they must be keen to look after my wellbeing.

[sproggie14]

If we're looking at essentially means testing care for the elderly why not then means test every other type of care? Why are people with plenty of money getting their offspring educated on my tax money? Why are silly vain girls getting their boobs enhanced on my tax money? The amount we contribute is already decided by our income, why should the amount we get back then be decided by our financial position again but only for elderly care? It's inconsistent and there are far less deserving things people get for free than care at the ends of their lives.