If they live out their days with the state paying for their care, exactly who deserves to get their house that they no longer need more than the state?
Sure, there's certainly something to be said about well to do children inheriting some house they actually don't care about - other than selling it.
But that's not the most common case. The common case is about a family home, a house well below average market value, often to be split between multiple decendents.
And that goes against nursing home bills, not rarely deep into the six figures.
Like, if you're talking about a working class person, and if that person manages to not kill themselves by way of drinking or smoking or eating exclusively nonsense (or all of that) and they live deep into old age, they'll be a net loss for the system.
Just generally.
Their old age care will more than swallow everything they ever paid in social security, into medicare or in income taxes. Heck you can probably add their whole lifetime of sales taxes and they're still a net loss for the system. Which is its point, actually.
Anyway, it's, like, a big, big, bigly big pile of red ink.
And now we're looking at that Murican cardboard house from 1954 that you want to take away from three working class decendents.
Because, supposedly, a family home is just any old asset.
I mean, i can't really dislodge your argument, but i emphatically have to go with:
Really?
