LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
How many people, having finished paying their mortgage, end up with something worth less than they spent? Especially when you consider if they hadn't been paying a mortgage they would have been paying rent and had no chance of seeing that money again.rick_chasey said:How is it not?!
Are you so used to rising house prices that you can't conceive of an instance when that doesn't happen?
The only time you would realistically lose out would be if you get repossesed in a bad housing market but even then the point is moot as you would have again been spending that money on rent. You have to spend money on somewhere to live, the difference with a mortgage is that at the end virtually everyone has something to show for that money.0 -
If I bought $1000 of apple stock exactly 21 years ago and I've done literally nothing to it it would now be worth $223,300.kingstongraham said:If a couple bought an average priced house in London in 1995 for £100k, then the second of them popped their clogs in 2021 (the surviving spouse having inherited the house when the first sadly passed away), the £600k that the house is now worth can be passed on completely tax free - plus another £400k tax free if it is to a direct descendant.
That £500k uplift has been accumulated through nothing other than living in the house. Or £400k of it if you want to adjust for inflation.
What's the difference? It's still an investment. It's just taxed differently because it's equities and not my primary home.0 -
I agree. If it weren't your home, the limit would be £650k tax free. Seems weird to me, but people would rather higher taxes on their earned income.rick_chasey said:
If I bought $1000 of apple stock exactly 21 years ago and I've done literally nothing to it it would now be worth $223,300.kingstongraham said:If a couple bought an average priced house in London in 1995 for £100k, then the second of them popped their clogs in 2021 (the surviving spouse having inherited the house when the first sadly passed away), the £600k that the house is now worth can be passed on completely tax free - plus another £400k tax free if it is to a direct descendant.
That £500k uplift has been accumulated through nothing other than living in the house. Or £400k of it if you want to adjust for inflation.
What's the difference? It's still an investment. It's just taxed differently because it's equities and not my primary home.0 -
That's not my argument. Your argument seemed to be that we shouldn't be having this new tax and that people should continue to sell their houses and fund their own care. I'm not a fan of it having been done through NI, I would rather a new tax / levy whatever you want to call it that comes from taxable income and inheritance tax as it seems unfairly weighted under this proposal.john80 said:
The problem here is that a CHC is based on the needs and not illness. Having dementia does not bar you however you need to have complex needs. In essence this system seems fair to me in that it is applied based on need and does not exclude dementia or any other specific illness. If the argument is that this needs a lower threshold to include all those you think are eligible then make the case and say how you are going to fund it as I don't think the 1.25% will cut the mustard.Pross said:
It depends on a CHC assessment, if the needs are primarily health related you don't have to self-fund and there is no means testing.john80 said:
I think you need to have a think about how things like Parkinsons etc are funded. For sure the medical treatment will be free but the living costs are not free if you can't work. You then enter the benefits system and this is means tested much like social care for the elderly. So by all means if you and many other posters think that Alzheimers or Dementia get special treatment or should get special treatment then I don't see your logic. You can be a 40 year old who gets Parkinsons but if you own a house you most likely won't own much of it after a couple of decades once the benefits system takes its cut. This is before you get to the nursing home.Pross said:
Are there any other long term illnesses you think we should pay for ourselves? I know people who have had treatment for years for cancer before it finally kills them, what about things like emphysema that may require treatment for decades. I'm really struggling to understand why you have chosen one particular disease as something that shouldn't be treated free by the NHS - what about things like MND, Parkinsons or life-long conditions such as severe autism?john80 said:
What I am trying to convey to you is think of what the doctor's surgery or local hospital treats you for and are setup for. They use scale and efficiency to deliver those services. Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die. Should you do that for free where your house and all your assets sit idle to be passed on through inheritance or should those resources pay for your care. Remember the time when people mainly died before getting these diseases and family were meant to care for their own. We have essentially sub contracted out these care roles for many reasons and we seem to be getting fed the line that this care should be covered as a free at source.Pross said:
You genuinely don't see dementia as an illness? Have you ever had a family member suffer with it? Whilst it is more common in over 65s you can get it far earlier in life too.john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
So my question to you would be if it is a free at source disease then you presumably would be happy with a trust setting up a specialist care home. They would be massive for scale and basic for minimum cost as under NICE guidelines we have to maximise tax payer benefit. You would be treated as you would at any hospital where the food would not be free, visitors would get charged by the hospital and if you don't feed your relatives they die after a while. This is a pretty standard hospital setup. Be careful what you wish for.
You want choice you need to pay for it as my family have done so in the past.
Your argument seems to be that because these illnesses may currently require people to sell their houses to pay for care at present then that should continue to be the case. You singled out dementia as a long-term issue that shouldn't come under free care (seemingly as it's just some old people who their relatives can't be bothered to care for) so I was pointing out other examples of long-term issues that can affect people of all ages (censored indeed can dementia). I haven't seen anyone suggesting dementia getting special treatment, they have been saying the exact opposite and that it should be treated the same as other illnesses. The new rules will hopefully go some way towards rectifying this discrepancy although there will still be an amount of assets above which the person will have to self-fund. I could maybe understand your point if it is just a case of people chucking their parents in an old folks home because they've started to need a bit of assistance and it is too much hassle but that isn't what dementia is.
I do think the whole system needs reviewing though, as I mentioned previously there are some in the care of the company my wife works for that only have the funding for the bare minimum whilst others in the same house get more benefits payments than they can spend.0 -
Unlike you, I owned a property in the early 1990s, the last time there was a significant fall in the value of residential property, but that fall only impacted those that purchased in the late 1980s and were looking to sell in the early 1990s. I also lived through mortgage rates rising from c.8% to 17% within a year.rick_chasey said:How is it not?!
Are you so used to rising house prices that you can't conceive of an instance when that doesn't happen?
Bradley Stoke near Bristol was rechristened Sadly Broke at the time.
With a rising population and fewer people wanting to share a property before entering a long term relationship, it is well documented that there is a shortage of housing, coupled with the tax breaks afforded to owning your home, historically exceptionally low interest rates,and a British obsession with ownership, mean demand overall has exceeded supply for a long, long time.
It still doesn't make it an investment.
0 -
Honestly. It is literally an investment. It is according to any definition an investment.
You can't just deny it's an investment because you live in it.
0 -
You don't live in apple stock.rick_chasey said:
If I bought $1000 of apple stock exactly 21 years ago and I've done literally nothing to it it would now be worth $223,300.kingstongraham said:If a couple bought an average priced house in London in 1995 for £100k, then the second of them popped their clogs in 2021 (the surviving spouse having inherited the house when the first sadly passed away), the £600k that the house is now worth can be passed on completely tax free - plus another £400k tax free if it is to a direct descendant.
That £500k uplift has been accumulated through nothing other than living in the house. Or £400k of it if you want to adjust for inflation.
What's the difference? It's still an investment. It's just taxed differently because it's equities and not my primary home.0 -
Aren't you just arguing that it's a very safe investment?Dorset_Boy said:
Unlike you, I owned a property in the early 1990s, the last time there was a significant fall in the value of residential property, but that fall only impacted those that purchased in the late 1980s and were looking to sell in the early 1990s. I also lived through mortgage rates rising from c.8% to 17% within a year.rick_chasey said:How is it not?!
Are you so used to rising house prices that you can't conceive of an instance when that doesn't happen?
Bradley Stoke near Bristol was rechristened Sadly Broke at the time.
With a rising population and fewer people wanting to share a property before entering a long term relationship, it is well documented that there is a shortage of housing, coupled with the tax breaks afforded to owning your home, historically exceptionally low interest rates,and a British obsession with ownership, mean demand overall has exceeded supply for a long, long time.
It still doesn't make it an investment.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I think it goes back to Pross's (?) point. Technically it is an investment, but it shouldn't be seen as such because its your fecking home and people need a place to live. They don't need to buy shares/stock.rick_chasey said:Honestly. It is literally an investment. It is according to any definition an investment.
You can't just deny it's an investment because you live in it.0 -
If you want to buy a property you know will be worthless in 10 years time be my guest, but I wouldn't recommend it as it is a bad investment!elbowloh said:
I think it goes back to Pross's (?) point. Technically it is an investment, but it shouldn't be seen as such because its your fecking home and people need a place to live. They don't need to buy shares/stock.rick_chasey said:Honestly. It is literally an investment. It is according to any definition an investment.
You can't just deny it's an investment because you live in it.0 -
Depends on the price, surely?rick_chasey said:
If you want to buy a property you know will be worthless in 10 years time be my guest, but I wouldn't recommend it as it is a bad investment!elbowloh said:
I think it goes back to Pross's (?) point. Technically it is an investment, but it shouldn't be seen as such because its your fecking home and people need a place to live. They don't need to buy shares/stock.rick_chasey said:Honestly. It is literally an investment. It is according to any definition an investment.
You can't just deny it's an investment because you live in it.0 -
Depends if you're buying it as a home or as an investment.rick_chasey said:
If you want to buy a property you know will be worthless in 10 years time be my guest, but I wouldn't recommend it as it is a bad investment!elbowloh said:
I think it goes back to Pross's (?) point. Technically it is an investment, but it shouldn't be seen as such because its your fecking home and people need a place to live. They don't need to buy shares/stock.rick_chasey said:Honestly. It is literally an investment. It is according to any definition an investment.
You can't just deny it's an investment because you live in it.
Anyway, who does do that? Anyone? Got any examples of this ever happening?
0 -
Yeah there are houses that never used to flood but are now in areas which since 10 years ago flood regularly, for example.elbowloh said:
Depends if you're buying it as a home or as an investment.rick_chasey said:
If you want to buy a property you know will be worthless in 10 years time be my guest, but I wouldn't recommend it as it is a bad investment!elbowloh said:
I think it goes back to Pross's (?) point. Technically it is an investment, but it shouldn't be seen as such because its your fecking home and people need a place to live. They don't need to buy shares/stock.rick_chasey said:Honestly. It is literally an investment. It is according to any definition an investment.
You can't just deny it's an investment because you live in it.
Anyway, who does do that? Anyone? Got any examples of this ever happening?
Most of the examples I know are climate change related.
In the US of course there are whole swathes of houses which were damaged by hurricanes that they now cannot sell at all. For some charity work I did when i was over there I helped fix some of those houses. The owner was giving us the sob story that the entire street was destroyed (it really was) but they were all worthless so he couldn't leave as he could not afford to buy or rent anything else.0 -
Did they know 10 years previously that they would be worthless? Surely they wouldn't have been able to get a mortgage to buy them. The mortgage company would have sent the packing straight away.rick_chasey said:
Yeah there are houses that never used to flood but are now in areas which since 10 years ago flood regularly, for example.elbowloh said:
Depends if you're buying it as a home or as an investment.rick_chasey said:
If you want to buy a property you know will be worthless in 10 years time be my guest, but I wouldn't recommend it as it is a bad investment!elbowloh said:
I think it goes back to Pross's (?) point. Technically it is an investment, but it shouldn't be seen as such because its your fecking home and people need a place to live. They don't need to buy shares/stock.rick_chasey said:Honestly. It is literally an investment. It is according to any definition an investment.
You can't just deny it's an investment because you live in it.
Anyway, who does do that? Anyone? Got any examples of this ever happening?
Most of the examples I know are climate change related.
In the US of course there are whole swathes of houses which were damaged by hurricanes that they now cannot sell at all. For some charity work I did when i was over there I helped fix some of those houses. The owner was giving us the sob story that the entire street was destroyed (it really was) but they were all worthless so he couldn't leave as he could not afford to buy or rent anything else.0 -
Well I guess not because it hadn't flooded before.elbowloh said:
Did they know 10 years previously that they would be worthless? Surely they wouldn't have been able to get a mortgage to buy them. The mortgage company would have sent the packing straight away.rick_chasey said:
Yeah there are houses that never used to flood but are now in areas which since 10 years ago flood regularly, for example.elbowloh said:
Depends if you're buying it as a home or as an investment.rick_chasey said:
If you want to buy a property you know will be worthless in 10 years time be my guest, but I wouldn't recommend it as it is a bad investment!elbowloh said:
I think it goes back to Pross's (?) point. Technically it is an investment, but it shouldn't be seen as such because its your fecking home and people need a place to live. They don't need to buy shares/stock.rick_chasey said:Honestly. It is literally an investment. It is according to any definition an investment.
You can't just deny it's an investment because you live in it.
Anyway, who does do that? Anyone? Got any examples of this ever happening?
Most of the examples I know are climate change related.
In the US of course there are whole swathes of houses which were damaged by hurricanes that they now cannot sell at all. For some charity work I did when i was over there I helped fix some of those houses. The owner was giving us the sob story that the entire street was destroyed (it really was) but they were all worthless so he couldn't leave as he could not afford to buy or rent anything else.
The risks this happening is low but it is not zero.0 -
so, we still don't know of anyone who bought a house who thought it would be worthless in 10 years.rick_chasey said:
Well I guess not because it hadn't flooded before.elbowloh said:
Did they know 10 years previously that they would be worthless? Surely they wouldn't have been able to get a mortgage to buy them. The mortgage company would have sent the packing straight away.rick_chasey said:
Yeah there are houses that never used to flood but are now in areas which since 10 years ago flood regularly, for example.elbowloh said:
Depends if you're buying it as a home or as an investment.rick_chasey said:
If you want to buy a property you know will be worthless in 10 years time be my guest, but I wouldn't recommend it as it is a bad investment!elbowloh said:
I think it goes back to Pross's (?) point. Technically it is an investment, but it shouldn't be seen as such because its your fecking home and people need a place to live. They don't need to buy shares/stock.rick_chasey said:Honestly. It is literally an investment. It is according to any definition an investment.
You can't just deny it's an investment because you live in it.
Anyway, who does do that? Anyone? Got any examples of this ever happening?
Most of the examples I know are climate change related.
In the US of course there are whole swathes of houses which were damaged by hurricanes that they now cannot sell at all. For some charity work I did when i was over there I helped fix some of those houses. The owner was giving us the sob story that the entire street was destroyed (it really was) but they were all worthless so he couldn't leave as he could not afford to buy or rent anything else.
The risks this happening is low but it is not zero.0 -
Oh sorry I though the question was "buying a house that then became worthless".elbowloh said:
so, we still don't know of anyone who bought a house who thought it would be worthless in 10 years.rick_chasey said:
Well I guess not because it hadn't flooded before.elbowloh said:
Did they know 10 years previously that they would be worthless? Surely they wouldn't have been able to get a mortgage to buy them. The mortgage company would have sent the packing straight away.rick_chasey said:
Yeah there are houses that never used to flood but are now in areas which since 10 years ago flood regularly, for example.elbowloh said:
Depends if you're buying it as a home or as an investment.rick_chasey said:
If you want to buy a property you know will be worthless in 10 years time be my guest, but I wouldn't recommend it as it is a bad investment!elbowloh said:
I think it goes back to Pross's (?) point. Technically it is an investment, but it shouldn't be seen as such because its your fecking home and people need a place to live. They don't need to buy shares/stock.rick_chasey said:Honestly. It is literally an investment. It is according to any definition an investment.
You can't just deny it's an investment because you live in it.
Anyway, who does do that? Anyone? Got any examples of this ever happening?
Most of the examples I know are climate change related.
In the US of course there are whole swathes of houses which were damaged by hurricanes that they now cannot sell at all. For some charity work I did when i was over there I helped fix some of those houses. The owner was giving us the sob story that the entire street was destroyed (it really was) but they were all worthless so he couldn't leave as he could not afford to buy or rent anything else.
The risks this happening is low but it is not zero.
No. No-one would buy a house that would be worthless in 10 years *because that would be a terrible investment* because it is indeed, an investment.0 -
how about the people who don't buy homes on new estates because the service charge doubles every 5 years.elbowloh said:
so, we still don't know of anyone who bought a house who thought it would be worthless in 10 years.rick_chasey said:
Well I guess not because it hadn't flooded before.elbowloh said:
Did they know 10 years previously that they would be worthless? Surely they wouldn't have been able to get a mortgage to buy them. The mortgage company would have sent the packing straight away.rick_chasey said:
Yeah there are houses that never used to flood but are now in areas which since 10 years ago flood regularly, for example.elbowloh said:
Depends if you're buying it as a home or as an investment.rick_chasey said:
If you want to buy a property you know will be worthless in 10 years time be my guest, but I wouldn't recommend it as it is a bad investment!elbowloh said:
I think it goes back to Pross's (?) point. Technically it is an investment, but it shouldn't be seen as such because its your fecking home and people need a place to live. They don't need to buy shares/stock.rick_chasey said:Honestly. It is literally an investment. It is according to any definition an investment.
You can't just deny it's an investment because you live in it.
Anyway, who does do that? Anyone? Got any examples of this ever happening?
Most of the examples I know are climate change related.
In the US of course there are whole swathes of houses which were damaged by hurricanes that they now cannot sell at all. For some charity work I did when i was over there I helped fix some of those houses. The owner was giving us the sob story that the entire street was destroyed (it really was) but they were all worthless so he couldn't leave as he could not afford to buy or rent anything else.
The risks this happening is low but it is not zero.
Or people who don't buy a house because of the chance of a price destroying development
People don't just buy houses to live in.
They also kid themselves about how much they "make" as they never deduct transaction costs and things like council tax and improvement costs.0 -
How is that any different to renting a place? You have to live somewhere so as long as you aren't buying a place to not live in then this highly unlikely scenario is no different to spending hundreds of pounds a month to live in a building someone else owns. The point is that the retained value is secondary to the need to have shelter and I'm not aware of anywhere I would want to live that can be done at no cost.rick_chasey said:
If you want to buy a property you know will be worthless in 10 years time be my guest, but I wouldn't recommend it as it is a bad investment!elbowloh said:
I think it goes back to Pross's (?) point. Technically it is an investment, but it shouldn't be seen as such because its your fecking home and people need a place to live. They don't need to buy shares/stock.rick_chasey said:Honestly. It is literally an investment. It is according to any definition an investment.
You can't just deny it's an investment because you live in it.0 -
I am relatively happy with the new tax as it is a pretty trivial percentage but my view is that this is mainly going to sort out the NHS and do little to nothing for social care. So fair play to him getting it through but anyone who claims it will make a big difference to those in the social care system or those going into it is having a laugh. I don't see the point in taking it as inheritance tax as you might as well take it in real time if you are going to take the assets of people. Any meaningful inheritance tax would have to be extremely high and the top 10 percent will easily be able to dodge this through trusts and offshore holdings etc.Pross said:
That's not my argument. Your argument seemed to be that we shouldn't be having this new tax and that people should continue to sell their houses and fund their own care. I'm not a fan of it having been done through NI, I would rather a new tax / levy whatever you want to call it that comes from taxable income and inheritance tax as it seems unfairly weighted under this proposal.john80 said:
The problem here is that a CHC is based on the needs and not illness. Having dementia does not bar you however you need to have complex needs. In essence this system seems fair to me in that it is applied based on need and does not exclude dementia or any other specific illness. If the argument is that this needs a lower threshold to include all those you think are eligible then make the case and say how you are going to fund it as I don't think the 1.25% will cut the mustard.Pross said:
It depends on a CHC assessment, if the needs are primarily health related you don't have to self-fund and there is no means testing.john80 said:
I think you need to have a think about how things like Parkinsons etc are funded. For sure the medical treatment will be free but the living costs are not free if you can't work. You then enter the benefits system and this is means tested much like social care for the elderly. So by all means if you and many other posters think that Alzheimers or Dementia get special treatment or should get special treatment then I don't see your logic. You can be a 40 year old who gets Parkinsons but if you own a house you most likely won't own much of it after a couple of decades once the benefits system takes its cut. This is before you get to the nursing home.Pross said:
Are there any other long term illnesses you think we should pay for ourselves? I know people who have had treatment for years for cancer before it finally kills them, what about things like emphysema that may require treatment for decades. I'm really struggling to understand why you have chosen one particular disease as something that shouldn't be treated free by the NHS - what about things like MND, Parkinsons or life-long conditions such as severe autism?john80 said:
What I am trying to convey to you is think of what the doctor's surgery or local hospital treats you for and are setup for. They use scale and efficiency to deliver those services. Dementia and Alzheimer's are long lasting conditions not suited to treatment at those venues hence why they are treated as social care. So you go to the care home to essentially the point you die. Should you do that for free where your house and all your assets sit idle to be passed on through inheritance or should those resources pay for your care. Remember the time when people mainly died before getting these diseases and family were meant to care for their own. We have essentially sub contracted out these care roles for many reasons and we seem to be getting fed the line that this care should be covered as a free at source.Pross said:
You genuinely don't see dementia as an illness? Have you ever had a family member suffer with it? Whilst it is more common in over 65s you can get it far earlier in life too.john80 said:
In my simple head the NHS is there and free at the point of use for medical needs. Sitting in a care home with dementia and needing personal care is not a NHS need in my view it is old age. Is it that unreasonable to make a person use their assets to pay for this until the can't then the state pays for it. The only argument seems to be from relatives who feel hard done by that they did not get an inheritance but someone else did. Does the person whose money it is care other than the care they get is good.surrey_commuter said:
an entirely reasonable viewpoint but you would really have to draw up a list of afflictions that will be self funded. I think you would get consensus for self-inflicted but that would exclude dementia.john80 said:If the argument is that social care is inefficient then it needs to be nationalised. If this is not the case then why should those that use it not pay for it if they have any assets. Why should their inheritance pass onto the next generation. There was the case of a women whose mother was likely to need expensive and long lasting dementia care. The complaint was she was going to have to move out of the family home that was owned by her mother. It did make me question why the mother did not sell the house to the daughter before she became incapable. The next question is why the daughter when the mother goes into care does not get a job and rent her own place. Maybe I am in the minority in thinking that my parents assets are theirs and suitable for their care should they require it with the state picking up the tab when this is gone.
So my question to you would be if it is a free at source disease then you presumably would be happy with a trust setting up a specialist care home. They would be massive for scale and basic for minimum cost as under NICE guidelines we have to maximise tax payer benefit. You would be treated as you would at any hospital where the food would not be free, visitors would get charged by the hospital and if you don't feed your relatives they die after a while. This is a pretty standard hospital setup. Be careful what you wish for.
You want choice you need to pay for it as my family have done so in the past.
Your argument seems to be that because these illnesses may currently require people to sell their houses to pay for care at present then that should continue to be the case. You singled out dementia as a long-term issue that shouldn't come under free care (seemingly as it's just some old people who their relatives can't be bothered to care for) so I was pointing out other examples of long-term issues that can affect people of all ages (censored indeed can dementia). I haven't seen anyone suggesting dementia getting special treatment, they have been saying the exact opposite and that it should be treated the same as other illnesses. The new rules will hopefully go some way towards rectifying this discrepancy although there will still be an amount of assets above which the person will have to self-fund. I could maybe understand your point if it is just a case of people chucking their parents in an old folks home because they've started to need a bit of assistance and it is too much hassle but that isn't what dementia is.
I do think the whole system needs reviewing though, as I mentioned previously there are some in the care of the company my wife works for that only have the funding for the bare minimum whilst others in the same house get more benefits payments than they can spend.0 -
Maybe Stevo would have been better off with Corbyn after all...
0 -
I have no great insight on the whole care home thing, but if it is compared to treatment for other illnesses wouldn't patients be expected to be on wards rather than in their own private rooms?0
-
What is the difference between around the clock care from nurses with occasional doctor visits in a home with your own room or in a hospital?TheBigBean said:I have no great insight on the whole care home thing, but if it is compared to treatment for other illnesses wouldn't patients be expected to be on wards rather than in their own private rooms?
You can’t have people on wards for years on end.
Also, for dementia, feeling “homely” can help with the symptoms quite a bit.
Hospitals often exacerbate symptoms and can bring on delerium which can be a catalyst for decline, so they try to keep dementia type patients out of hospitals where they can.0 -
Anybody else think that it is a good idea that has not a cat in hell’s chance of being implemented in anything other than a farcical manner?0
-
Vote Corbyn, get socialism. Seems very straightforward.briantrumpet said:Maybe Stevo would have been better off with Corbyn after all...
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I doubt this gets into his top 10 socialist policies so it is interesting that they have chosen this as a stick to beat him with.rjsterry said:
Vote Corbyn, get socialism. Seems very straightforward.briantrumpet said:Maybe Stevo would have been better off with Corbyn after all...
Do we need a new thread to debate the next leader of the Tory Party?0 -
Probably. They clearly despise him.surrey_commuter said:
I doubt this gets into his top 10 socialist policies so it is interesting that they have chosen this as a stick to beat him with.rjsterry said:
Vote Corbyn, get socialism. Seems very straightforward.briantrumpet said:Maybe Stevo would have been better off with Corbyn after all...
Do we need a new thread to debate the next leader of the Tory Party?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rick_chasey said:
What is the difference between around the clock care from nurses with occasional doctor visits in a home with your own room or in a hospital?TheBigBean said:I have no great insight on the whole care home thing, but if it is compared to treatment for other illnesses wouldn't patients be expected to be on wards rather than in their own private rooms?
You can’t have people on wards for years on end.
Also, for dementia, feeling “homely” can help with the symptoms quite a bit.
Hospitals often exacerbate symptoms and can bring on delerium which can be a catalyst for decline, so they try to keep dementia type patients out of hospitals where they can.rick_chasey said:
What is the difference between around the clock care from nurses with occasional doctor visits in a home with your own room or in a hospital?TheBigBean said:I have no great insight on the whole care home thing, but if it is compared to treatment for other illnesses wouldn't patients be expected to be on wards rather than in their own private rooms?
You can’t have people on wards for years on end.
Also, for dementia, feeling “homely” can help with the symptoms quite a bit.
Hospitals often exacerbate symptoms and can bring on delerium which can be a catalyst for decline, so they try to keep dementia type patients out of hospitals where they can.
You appear to have made this stuff up. Delerium is medical condition brought on usually by an acute infection not by the environment. Hospital can exacerbate confusion and familiarity with one’s environment will cause less distress. Most people with dementia probably can’t tell you how they feel so how can they feel homely even if there is such a thing.rick_chasey said:
What is the difference between around the clock care from nurses with occasional doctor visits in a home with your own room or in a hospital?TheBigBean said:I have no great insight on the whole care home thing, but if it is compared to treatment for other illnesses wouldn't patients be expected to be on wards rather than in their own private rooms?
You can’t have people on wards for years on end.
Also, for dementia, feeling “homely” can help with the symptoms quite a bit.
Hospitals often exacerbate symptoms and can bring on delerium which can be a catalyst for decline, so they try to keep dementia type patients out of hospitals where they can.0 -
I literally had the discussion with the hospital about why the FIL can’t stay in hospital on a ward and instead had to go into home 3 months ago.
I am looking at a leaflet in my hand that says “unfamiliar locations” can cause and exacerbate delerium.
1 in 5 patients in hospital get it
https://www.nbt.nhs.uk/patients-carers/coming-hospital/dementia-care/patient-information-delirium
Hospitals are not good places for people with dementia like illnesses.0 -
Maybe you should actually read the leaflet and what the first sentence says.rick_chasey said:I literally had the discussion with the hospital about why the FIL can’t stay in hospital on a ward and instead had to go into home 3 months ago.
I am looking at a leaflet in my hand that says “unfamiliar locations” can cause an exacerbate delerium.
1 in 5 patients in hospital get it
https://www.nbt.nhs.uk/patients-carers/coming-hospital/dementia-care/patient-information-delirium
0
