On Thu, 08 May 2008 17:45:10 +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 :)
I have no reason not to believe him. He could, after all, have
pretended to *be* the mother instead of himself.
>>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
And can you supply the crystal ball that will let them know at exactly
what age they will be in need of care so that they can make the
arrangements a few years beforehand?
In many cases the onset is extremely sudden. It is not even uncommon
for an elderly person to be 100% healthy in the morning, and in need
of 24 hour nursing care in the afternoon due to suffering a stroke.
>>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
No - as I repeatedly have attempted to tell you, the state *should*
bear the cost, but usually in the case of the elderly in need of care
will refuse to do so without a fight (i.e. court case).
--
Cynic
|