Last Titanic survivor sells mementoes to pay for care: report

[Tab]

Source: AFP

LONDON (AFP) - The last remaining survivor of the Titanic disaster is auctioning mementoes from the doomed liner to pay for her hursing home fees, a newspaper said Thursday.

Millvina Dean was only two months old when the Titanic struck an iceberg on its maiden voyage and sank in 1912, but now at the age of 96 she is struggling to make ends meet and hopes to make 3,000 pounds (3,845 euros, 5,171 dollars) from the sale.

Personal items going under the hammer include a 100-year-old suitcase filled with clothes given to her family by the people of New York after they arrived there following the catastrophe.

Dean has lived in a nursing home for the last two years.

"I was hoping to be here for two weeks after breaking my hip but I developed an infection and have been here for two years. I am not able to live in my home any more," she told the Southern Daily Echo newspaper.

"I am selling it all now because I have to pay these nursing home fees and am selling anything that I think might fetch some money," she added. "The fees are quite expensive. The more money I can get from the auction the better."

Some 1,500 passengers and crew aboard the Titanic died when the White Star Line luxury ship sank in the frigid northern Atlantic ocean on its way from Southampton to New York.

Dean's family were emigrating to Kansas aboard the doomed liner. She was the youngest survivor, rescued along with her baby brother and mother Eva, although her father died.

In all, some 700 people survived the sinking, one of the worst maritime disasters ever. Their numbers have dwindled over the decades, leaving only Dean left after fellow Briton Barbara Joyce Dainton died last year.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081016/en_afp/britaintitanichistoryauction

[NoodleyAppendage]

1. This is just sad, sad, sad. You'd think that the British would have some sort of nursing coverage?

I thought their system covered medical expenses to some degree?

J

[notadmblnd]

2. So does she live in Britian or the US?

I thought Britain has socialized health care? If she is from the US, they would have made her sell the stuff long ago for her nursing home care, then the state would take care of it. I don't understand?

[WriteDown]

3. Isn't she covered....

by the healthcare system? Why does she have to sell these treasures?

[Javaman]

4. This is just a guess, but probably nursing homes aren't covered under the national health care. nt

[WriteDown]

6. That may be the case....

Hoping some or our Brit posters with more info will chime in.

[xxqqqzme]

10. not after thatcher.

She cut holes in senior safety nets - free market economy - don't you know.

[WriteDown]

13. Are the holes so big that....

people like this get no coverage at all?

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. If a person has assets, which includes their home, worth more than £22,250

then they have to pay their own nursing home fees (I think that figure is up to date- it's quoted in many recent webpages).

Yes, it's a bummer, but it is a problem: if someone who has a home worth, say £170,000 (roughly the UK average), and they will not be able to live in it again, so that it will be inherited by someone else, should they get public money for their upkeep - so that their heirs get the full value of the home - or should they have to seel the house, so that their heirs receive less?

[WriteDown]

18. So basically they are saying...

if you want to have state care, your heirs can't inherit anything?

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Yeah. Or not much, anyway.

And that is a justifiable position, in some ways. The heirs aren't being asked to pay for the care themselves, after all.

[WriteDown]

20. Hmm, not sure I agree with that....

Those figures you cited do not sound like much at all. Especially in the UK.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. I'm not sure it's the correct way to do it, but I can see the argument

You can say that you normally expect families to help take care of their close relatives; so saying that the cost has to come out of what will otherwise be an inheritance, rather than taxpayers paying for them, is one point of view.

[Nihil]

35. Went through this a few years ago w.r.t. my mother.

It got to the point where she needed full-time professional care
(rather than family & visiting nurses) and that meant moving into
a nursing home.

An "inheritance" used to be the way that parents would leave a
final gift to help their children - often by providing the home
for the next generation - but successive governments have meant
that this option was only available for those rich enough to
evade/avoid the various tax nets set up to catch the "lesser people".
(That injustice is a whole different kettle of fish but not specific
to the "care for the elderly" issue.)

We 'children' all had our own homes so 'inheriting the family home'
had already changed from its original meaning and the step to treating
it as a 'financial asset' that would make a significant difference to
the quality of life for Mum was a logical one to take.

On a personal level, I was very sad to see the house sold as I had
literally been born in it (home delivery) but, as Mum had to move
out, it was no longer the "family home" - just a house with some
attached memories.

When Mum died, the remaining funds were split amongst the children
(as they would have been had it not included the nursing home episode)
so you could say that there wasn't much difference in the long term.
On the other hand, the short term difference it made to her life was
worth every penny.

Although I too was somewhat bitter about "the state not caring enough
for her" at first, I have come to realise that I can't think of a better
way in this situation to get the focus back onto the people rather
than the numbers. "The State" didn't (and shouldn't) need to care for
her, her family had that responsibility and met it as best they could.

If there is no family then yes, the state *should* be there to provide
the required support but the state is *not* there to allow families to
take the money and run.

[WriteDown]

38. I will lose my family home on LI to this....

but the state won't provide me with anything in return. It is a ludicrous law.

[Nihil]

39. I sympathise ...

As I said, I've been there and it didn't look any better to me
at the time either. It was only in retrospect that I could see
a degree of reason where before I only saw petty theft on the
part of the government.

:hug:

Now I can see that the state *didn't* owe me anything (so they
didn't deprive me of "what they owed") and the decisions that
we made at that time (after sometimes emotional discussions)
were just a recasting of the responsibilities that children have
for their parents - brought up to date if you will.

Good luck. :hi:

[WriteDown]

40. But no one is giving me anything...

My father and mother have been taxed their whole lives. They've saved up their whole lives so they would not be "a burden" on their 3 children as they put it. Now we are forced to deal with attorneys to hide enough money so we don't lose the house. The only good news is that with real estate values dropping so fast, it may no longer be an issue.

[SoCalDem]

22. Yes.. that's the way it is in most places

if she has family that she wants to have her "stuff", then they need to pony up some help for her while she's alive..

Many people "outlive" their capacity to care for themselves, and they either sell all they have, and have the "state" care for them in exchange for those assets, or the family pitches in until they have passed, and then receives their assets that are left..

Before old people were "warehoused", family used to move in with them or have the old folks living with them from the get-go..

if you want "someone else" to sit with/care for elderly/dying relatives, you have to be ready to not "get their stuff"..

[WriteDown]

23. What about the taxes she has been paying her whole life?

So she has to pay more. The woman is in her 90's for goodness sake.

[SharonAnn]

25. No. what they're saying is that if you're too poor to pay for your care,

the state will pay for it.

However, you are expected to pay for your own care if you can afford to.

Apparently she can afford to pay for her care because she is holding assets that have value.

Why on earth should taxpayers pay for someone's care so that their heirs can inherit all that someone's assets? Good grief!

I'd love to have the taxpayers pay for my care while I keep my own money and assets, but I think that's wrong.

[WriteDown]

29. Perhaps so their heirs...

can end up better then their parents had it? You're basically promoting perpetual poverty. The rich have ways of hiding their funds so they aren't taxed. Its people like this who are always hit with the burden.

[Doremus]

33. It works the same way in the US. If you have the $$ you have to pay.

If not, Medicaid picks it up. You have to spend your assets down to practically nothing before you're eligible. Then you're allowed a small weekly stipend to cover incidentals.

They do go after estates to recoup as much of the cost as possible.

[WriteDown]

37. She didn't "make" any money....

The value of these items is only there because they are associated with the Titanic. It would be similar to your father keeping his 57 chevy and trying to hand it down to you.

[Doremus]

41. I didn't say anything about "making" money. It's all about assets.

In the US, you have to spend down your assets (cash, property, real estate) before you're eligible for Medicaid.

If my father needed nursing home care and didn't have the ability to pay for it, he would first have to "spend down" his assets (home, cars, etc), i.e. sell his stuff and pay the nursing home. After his assets and cash were gone (down to a certain small amount AND exempting his spouse's legal portion), THEN Medicaid would start picking up the tab.

That's just the way it is and, frankly, I don't see what's wrong with expecting people to pay their own way IF THEY'RE ABLE. Why should other people be expected to pay someone's nursing home bill just because they don't want to?

Edited to clarify: I'm not suggesting the woman in the OP doesn't want to pay her nursing home bill. I'm only explaining the process by which one becomes eligible for Medicaid-sponsored nursing home care.

[WriteDown]

42. So you are saying that those who have saved

and who have spent wisely as opposed to those who gambled their money away are more responsible to pay? By your system, it makes more sense to take as money luxury trips as possible before you retire so you don't end up with too much money. There has to be some kind of delineation of assets. If its inherited money, then I can see taxing it. If its just an antique that you actually bought 50 years ago, then I can't see the logic.

[Doremus]

47. Lawyers and estate planners make a good living advising people

how to LEGALLY keep as much of their estates as possible through trusts and other means.

If I were the OP I would have handed down the Titanic stuff to my family decades ago. If she had done that then she wouldn't have had to sell it now and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Foresight is highly underrated.

[WriteDown]

49. No argument here....

That's what I am having to go through. Basically paying a fortune to a lawyer so we don't have to lose our possessions to the government. Its a circus.

[SharonAnn]

34. OK, I should have money taken from me to pay for her so that she

can leave her money to someone else?

The "government" money that would pay her bills is taken from the money paid by taxpayers.

I'm still scratching my head about why you would think that this makes sense.

I should be worse off so that she can make somebody else better off? We should prevent her heirs from poverty by putting me in poverty? Why are her heirs entitled to my money?

[WriteDown]

36. So if your mom passes away I am sure

that you would have no problem selling her engagement ring and other jewelry. Also any furniture that they may have handed down. Those things appreciate quite a bit over time.

[Nihil]

43. I'm not sure about the US rules but the point so far is that ...

... the money transfers while they are still alive - specifically to keep them
in the preferred quality of life. They haven't "handed down" anything, they are
simply "realising their assets" (to borrow a banking phrase) in order to achieve
an acceptable standard of living.

This *isn't* a case of "selling her engagement ring" after "your mom passes away" ...
it is about providing enough money (from whatever means) to keep "your mom" in an
acceptable standard of living.

[Gormy Cuss]

44. You're basically promoting everyone subsidizing the betterment of the heirs

through a back door. Medicaid is not funded sufficiently to allow for those with assets to hide them and play poverty. Who gets hurt by that? Low income people who have no assets.

Besides, parents have easy mechanisms for transferring wealth to heirs through gifts. In the current tax year it's on the order of $12,000 per child per year tax-free. That's a wealth transfer accessible even to the middle class without paying for attorneys or lawyers. The problem arises when the parents aren't willing to make these gifts for whatever reason.

[WriteDown]

48. Why does it even have to be medicaid?

Why can't we talk about it in terms of Medicare? And what if your parents die suddenly? Are those folks just screwed? Lets not forget that most of these items have been taxed already for a very long time.

[Gormy Cuss]

51. Because in the current situation, Medicaid is the vehicle

And in the current situation hiding the assets in later days in order to get the government to pick up the tab affects Medicaid.

If parents die suddenly, then the estate transfer rules come into play and again, most middle class family assets can transfer to children with little if any taxes therefore "those folks" aren't screwed.

[WriteDown]

53. Obviously...

you've never been middle class on Long Island or somewhere lik San Francisco. I'll be honest, I'll burn that house down before I am forced to sell it. I had hoped to raise my own children there, but may be getting too late for that.

[Gormy Cuss]

54. Obviously, I have.

I live in the East Bay area of San Francisco. I've also lived in deep poverty in a family and in a community that relied on Medicaid for the pitiful amount of health care offered. That perspective is what forms my support for the use of assets before Medicaid kicks in.

I'm sorry that you face the prospect of losing a treasured home. It's tough but sometimes unavoidable. I know how it feels -- my childhood home was flattened for urban renewal.

[WriteDown]

55. At least we can agree on one thing....

I hate the gentrification that has gone on in San Fran and Seattle. Utterly disgusting.

[xxqqqzme]

26. I'm surprised the government doesn't

put a lien on it so when it is inherited, the heirs have to have a fire sale to pay the outstanding expenses.

[Mabus]

12. She's in a private nursing home

I assume that private care facilities' costs aren't covered by the national system. :shrug:

[WriteDown]

15. Interesting....

I wonder why she opted to see these priceless things rather than just go into public care.

[Mabus]

16. Here's an article that sheds some light

Keep in mind that in the article cited above in the OP that she says she broke her hip and then developed an infection. According the 5 year old Q&A below, she may be having to pay extra for personal care.

Q&A: personal care for the elderly
A royal commission has attacked the government for refusing to provide free personal care for older people who need assistance. But provision varies widely between UK countries. David Batty reports

* David Batty
* Society Guardian,
* Monday September 29 2003
* Article history

What is the row about?
The government has been accused by the royal commission on long-term care for the elderly of "betraying" millions of older people by refusing to provide free personal care for those who are no longer fit to look after themselves. The commission was established by the government in 1997 and published a report in March 2000, which recommended that all nursing care should be free and that personal care, such as bathing, feeding, dressing and help with medication, should also be free according to assessed need. Only Scotland met these recommendations in full, while England, Wales and Northern Ireland only chose to cover the costs of nursing care - providing personal care on a tightly means-tested basis. As a result, thousands of older people have been forced to sell their homes to meet the costs of their personal care, said nine members of the commission, including the chairman Sir Stewart Sutherland.

How many people does this issue affect?
About 35,000 older people in England, up to 8,000 in Scotland and 2,200 in Wales who do not get state help with nursing home fees. Average fees are about £337 a week, or £17,524 a year, according to the royal commission. Thousands have to sell their homes to meet these costs. Except in Scotland, anyone with assets of £18,500 or more - including their home - has to fund the full amount.

How much do older people in each country pay for care?
Under the Scottish plan, nursing and residential home residents only have to cover their accommodation costs, estimated at £120 a week or £6,240 a year. Personal care and nursing care for those with assessed need will be paid up to a maximum of £90 and £65 per week respectively.

In Wales, residents pay a flat rate of £90 for their nursing needs, leaving them with a weekly care bill of £247, or £12,844 a year. Northern Ireland has followed the lines of the Welsh government, but has said this is an interim response. However, the English system is far more complex. Older people receive one of three rates to cover nursing care costs - £35, £85 or £110 a week - depending on whether they have low, medium or high level needs. Those with simple needs still pay £302 a week, or £15,704 a year.

more at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/sep/29/longtermcare

[LeftishBrit]

28. A very important issue and a scandal

Also, even apart from the financial aspects, the division between nursing and personal care can lead to utter confusion about where to go for what sort of care, which can lead to elderly people not knowing where to turn (sometimes even their GPs seem not to know!) and failing to get a lot of the help that they're entitled to.

[Mabus]

31. Thank you for posting and helping the rest of us understand

One of the best things about DU is the diversity.

I had no idea that there was a problem with elder care.

[LeftishBrit]

27. Probably because most state nursing home care is pretty awful; and so is much private nursing home

care. (That's if you can even get into a nursing home.)

Good nursing home care here is expensive AND there is nevertheless usually a long waiting-list for it.

Care for the elderly has always been the 'Cinderella' of the British health care system; and Thatcher made it much worse.

[WriteDown]

50. Yikes....

That sounds awful. When do people start applying for spots?

[woodsprite]

5. Sheesh! 5K would only cover 2 months of my Mom's

assisted living shared room, and that was 6 years ago, without the drug costs being added in.

[jellen]

7. nursing home costs

I work in a nursing home because I retired and couldn't make
ends meet.I am 68 . I keep an eye out for a nice room. But 5K
wouldn't last a month. And you can be sure that I don't make a
mint, about 8.75 an hour.I feel lucky that I'm still able to
work.

[dennis4868]

8. I thought McCain was the last...

survivor....hm.....

[earth mom]

9. James Cameron, the director of the film Titanic should help this lady out. nt

[LostinVA]

14. Excellent suggestion

Maybe he, Kate Winslet, James Horner, et al will step in and give the lady a hand. I know she met with Cameron during the planning of the movie.

[NashVegas]

11. If NHS Operates Like Medicare, She's Probably Selling a Little So She Won't Have to Sell Everything

When you go on Medicare, you basically have to turn over all your assets.

My mom was in a similar boat: she went in for 8 weeks of rehab for a spine injury, caught pneumonia, and that was that.

[choie]

24. Slight error in the article...

Not a big deal, but this line is contradictory:

Dean's family were emigrating to Kansas aboard the doomed liner. She was the youngest survivor, rescued along with her baby brother and mother Eva, although her father died.

Her brother was actually the youngest survivor, since he was her baby brother and thus younger than she was! Poor editing, there.

It'll be a shame when she's gone. Hard to believe she's the last survivor now ... I vividly remember lists being published of the living survivors back when Titanic was released. Of course, that was twelve years ago. I guess it was natural that their numbers dwindled fast. :(

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. No, she was the youngest - her brother was 1 year 10 months old

She was 2 months old. See http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-biography/bertram-vere-dean.html

Calling him her 'baby brother' is a bit misleading; but perhaps it was because he was still under 2 - so mayeb still a baby in many people's eyes.

[Art_from_Ark]

32. Usually the American image of "baby brother" is a younger brother

but in this case, unless they were twins, the brother coundn't have been younger because the sister was only 2 months old at the time.

[dysfunctional press]

46. this is completely off-topic, but your post brings up a question for me...

is there any species where the female can become impregnated while already pregnant? :shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

45. her brother was 21 months older than her...

they were both considered to be babies at the time- but he was more of an infant or approaching toddlerhood.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. She actually got over £30,000 from the auction

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7677913.stm

[dysfunctional press]

56. was she planning on taking the stuff with her...?

:shrug:

it's not like she has any recollections of the voyage, anyway.