Ignorance is no excuse

Oh, thank you
I've missed having people to argue with tak to.

Welcome back MissAdventure. Thanks for your comments here, based as ever in reality, humour and compassion 🌞

MissAdventure

People who never need hospital treatment are subsidising those with premature babies, long term health problems, traumatic injuries, etc.

True. Not always understood.

Magenta8

I am not sure very many people who receive free care home places can be said to have contributed nothing.

Many will have paid income tax and national insurance all their working lives. There are also many who stayed at home and did most of the housework and looked after the DCs which will have enabled the breadwinner.

I quite agree.

I certainly have no idea how others have lived, saved, worked. I don't want people not having care. We've saved for care, if that was not possible, perhaps our home would be sold. Very logical.

I'm not one who thinks paying for care is a penalty.

Yes, that must cost a fortune!

Anyway, regardless, in terms of care homes, i would report any staff who are giving out info on somebodys finances.

MissAdventure Very true.

Working people who don't have children not only subsidise those who do, they also help pay for the free education these children receive. I think that is how the welfare state is supposed to work.

People who never need hospital treatment are subsidising those with premature babies, long term health problems, traumatic injuries, etc.

Sago

Well it’s true, my Mother who worked all her life and paid tax was in a nursing home paying £1000’s a week, I had to sell her home to pay for care.

In the same home were residents who paid nothing.

So it does often seem unfair.

Its very unfair.

After dad died my mum's dementia worsened with her ending up in a nursing home and I had to sell her bungalow to pay their fees, with those around her not having paid a penny as our local London council paid their fees, at a good couple of hundred pounds a week LESS than my mum was charged for exactly the same level of living/food/care etc.

In what other situation would you be forced to subsidise others in this way ?

Aside from this, my dad had terminal cancer, was given 1-3 months life expectancy and got the higher rate of Attendance Allowance after having not claimed a penny his whole life, he was then 82, (I wont include the state pension, he'd more than enough worked for that, having started full time work aged 14 - yes 14 years old worked full time until retirement.

The money granted was then around £80/weekly (in 2014).

Dad lasted 6 weeks but he had the 'audacity' to die on a Wednesday.

The following week my mum received a letter from the benefits office which said, because he died mid-week he wasn't entitled to that weeks full amount and could mum pay it back!

Good point.

And there have been examples of irresponsible climbers who needed rescue, putting rescuers' lives at risk and costing public money in search operations. Perhaps they should pay for their rescue.

MissAdventure

The same could be said for any service.
Smokers vs non smokers in need of cancer care.
Mountain climbers vs couch potatoes, and so on.

I think it has been said that cigarette smokers paid more in tax which covered any NHS cancer treatnent.

I am not sure very many people who receive free care home places can be said to have contributed nothing.

Many will have paid income tax and national insurance all their working lives. There are also many who stayed at home and did most of the housework and looked after the DCs which will have enabled the breadwinner.

Thank you

MissAdventure

Yes, it usually does fall to the families to top up anything which costs more than the basics.
Its such a deep subject, i think.

Yes some enter having never saved, but then its as well to look at why they didn't.

I don't think its possible to unpack years of someones life, from childhood, into old age and base judgment that they are somehow unworthy

Welcome back MissA.

Good point, I also wouldn't want to live in a country where old people were on the streets or living in squalor because they hadn't the money to pay for care.

There are still plenty of care homes that only accept self-funded residents, if it makes people so annoyed maybe one of those would be the answer.

There is no reason to believe that someone who isn't in the position to pay for care hasn't 'paid' as much into society by other means though.
Being a low paid payed factory worker where she has perhaps contributed to her boss's wealth, or caring for a family member and therefore limiting her earing power.
In a good many cases the very people who have supported our country and worked and struggled all of their lives in harsh circumstances are now able to be treated as the rest of us.
I never take for granted my very good fortune to have been well enough/ lucky enough/stable enough/safe enough etc to have the life I want, many don't.

Mollygo

Sadly it’s true. Mum’s care bill was horrific and we did have to sell her house.

As for the title, ignorance is no excuse,

not knowing or not having been told was used as an excuse by KS recently. Maybe he should read GN.

Yes but, he couldn't have found out the ins & outs of the security vetting on Google or down at the CAB?!

I can see why it was frowned upon to not use others' clothes.
Its a slippery slope, i think, to allowing people no autonomy, or taking what they have away.

One persons idea of appropriate dressing may well not be anothers, and if they have dementia, how can they express that?

Bit from a practical point of view, its ridiculous to not take advantage of free, sometimes beautiful clothing and distributing them discreetly.

MissAdventure

That seems to be a grey area.
For a time, it would certainly not be allowed to put a resident in someone elses clothes, or to use their toiletries

The last place i worked, though, was like a rummage sale when someone died!

People have to save, generally, if they need things which are outside of their meagre allowance, and have nobody to help.

Very sad...

TBH I don’t see what on earth could be wrong with using the clothes of a person who has died, when otherwise they would either be binned or taken to a charity shop.

In the case of my aunt, she was in a dementia wing, and TBH people with dementia, even if formerly fastidious, do often come to give not a toss about what they’re wearing.

That’s why I once found my mother (formerly very conscious of her appearance but also with dementia) wearing her usual trousers and jumper - but with her nightie still on underneath the jumper, so coming down to her knees.

Care home staff were very apologetic, but ‘she refused any help’.
Should add that she was usually very nicely dressed.

Well, residential care is suposed to be like a home from home.
If that is what her preference was, let her be slipperless but sozzled.

Yes the woman was mobile and went over the road to supermarket for her gin every day

That seems to be a grey area.
For a time, it would certainly not be allowed to put a resident in someone elses clothes, or to use their toiletries

The last place i worked, though, was like a rummage sale when someone died!

People have to save, generally, if they need things which are outside of their meagre allowance, and have nobody to help.

Very sad...

MissAdventure

People always provided their own toiletries in homes I've worked in.
There is money left in their kittys to pay for hairdressing, chiropody and other costs

IIRC a certain amount of their state pension is allowed every week or month, to council funded care home residents, to help pay for toiletries and anything else they might need.

Though judging from the fact that we were asked to leave all the things of an aunt who died in her care home, ‘since we have residents with very little money, and no relatives to buy them anything’ it often won’t be enough.
They even wanted her old, faded nighties.

What if people with so little need e.g. new shoes or slippers?

The Dilnot report came out in 2011. It advised on making the care system fairer to all. As far as I know no Government has implemented it's findings.

I do think that IHT should be on a sliding scale as income tax is.

Sometimes it seems like grave-robbing.

I don't know who would be supplying a bottle of drink a day to a resident.
And i don't know how other people could possibly be given access to someones personal financial ststus.
It would breach data protection legislation