You're cherry picking from the scenario I posted. In my scenario, yes person B rented as opposed to owning, however they also frittered away their income. My underlying point is this. Why should one person have to pay for their care simply because they've been cautious with their money over the decades, and yet someone else (who earned the same) frittered theirs away over the decades. So more of their care gets funded by the taxpayer.Maybe because they have always lived in rented accommodation. What to do with those?
Actually I met some one who earned more than enough to buy a house but rented instead. The idea -to have no assets when the time came. His wife had a pretty good job too. He lived in a nice place in a nice village and was at the point of moving into an even better property in the same village.
It's all right for people from a different time saying well I did it etc but times change and it looks like renting levels will increase anyway unless house prices crumble. I met a Finn that was really bothered by this aspect. Chances of buying a house zero. An apartment maybe.
Maybe the best idea is as you say, try to plan everything so you don't have assets when going into your dotage.
You're careful with your money, government says 'we'll take some of that, and some more, and some more.' You blow it all on whatever, government says 'the taxpayer will cover your costs, don't worry.'
Something's not right in that equation, not to me anyway.