On Thu, 08 May 2008 16:57:52 +0100, Cynic
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 15:55:25 +0100, Alang
>wrote:
>
>>>And where in that is there any suggestion that the *OP* is the person
>>>wishing to avoid having her house taken?
>>
>>The OP is the person asking
>
>On behalf of his mother.
Well you believe him :)
>
>It is often assumed that the impetus comes from greedy children who
>want a share of the inheritance. That *can* be the case, but is as
>likely to come from the elderly person who has made considerable
>efforts and sacrifices to provide for their children or grandchildren,
>and who become completely devastated when they see it all being
>gobbled up by the system.
They can avoid that by giving it away a few years early
>
>>>>>At the end of the day, the "baby sitting" is required due to a
>>>>>*medical* condition.
>
>>>>If that is the case then the care is free
>
>>> - that's the entire point I've been making. The fact is that
>>>the local authority/NHS will nevertheless tell the patient & relatives
>>>that it must be paid for. IOW they routinely wriggle out of their
>>>legal obligations. And most people pay up because they do not believe
>>>that it is possible that everyone in those organisations would be
>>>telling them an untruth.
>>
>>That is not the point that needed making.
>>The point I made was that if the old one needed care where there was
>>a risk of the local authority taking her home to pay for it then his
>>solution was to look after her himself. Or get the grandchildren to do
>>it.
>
>Would you advocate the same for *any* medical condition that requires
>care? A broken hip, perhaps?
If it didn't need medical care then yes
>
>>>>>There are plenty of people in hospital beds who
>>>>>also merely require "baby sitting",
>
>>>>name 3
>
>>>Any person in a hospital bed who is receiving medical treatment that
>>>could not be easily administered at home. Which has been the case
>>>with nearly everyone I have ever visited in hospital at some stage of
>>>their stay.
>
>>And there are plenty of people who can be cared for at home with a
>>little aid from the social services. Unfortunately most councils in
>>England have started charging exorbitant rates for help that used to
>>be free. Help that kept many in their own homes able to live a more
>>normal life.
>
>There is a duty upon the state to provide *adequate* medical care.
>There is no duty to provide a *particular type* of care. If the
>authorities decide to carry out their duty by placing the patient in a
>hospital or care home rather than providing some specialist equipment
>and maybe a regular health visitor to the home of the patient or the
>patient's relatives, you cannot force them to change their mind.
Then the state will bear the burden of the cost |