Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I may be in the minority, but I am doing this the "old-fashioned" way! I am honored to be able to care for the person who cared for me. No one said it is easy, but it is a part of life. Sometimes another person's situation is different, I am not the one to judge. But services have to be paid for, somehow.
The thing is my mother saved NOTHING for her old age. She had no house, no car, nothing. The Medicaid was a lifesafer. She was in a lovely nursing home for her last years.
If we had paid for the nursing home out of pocket? Over $100,000 a year. She was on the locked floor, and they took excellent care of her.
I did take care of her through cancer, heart, pneumonia, and gall bladder problems; but dementia completely defeated me. I simply did not have the physical or emotional strength to deal with that. It is horrifying to see your beloved parent literally lose their mind . . .
After watching my cognitively impaired grandmother s children withhold a large pension for her under the guise of a "FBO" account, put her house in a trust for all of them to split the proceeds from after she died, and yet not using any of HER own financial resources on HER care, i absolutely think Medicaid should be paid back from her estate.
The cost of her final surgery was nearly the exact amount of the money they put in her "for benefit of" account yet ironically was really only for THEIR benefit.
I don't think my example of children choosing parental neglect to essentially steal their parents cash for themselves is an isolated incident.
Your parents' money is for their benefit, not yours. And if the government helps them, in a time of emergency, then why are you entitled so such money and not the tax payers who actually paid for their care?
I literally get sick to my stomach thinking about compromised elderly being "cared for" by their children in such a way.
After watching my cognitively impaired grandmother s children withhold a large pension for her under the guise of a "FBO" account, put her house in a trust for all of them to split the proceeds from after she died, and yet not using any of HER own financial resources on HER care, i absolutely think Medicaid should be paid back from her estate.
The cost of her final surgery was nearly the exact amount of the money they put in her "for benefit of" account yet ironically was really only for THEIR benefit.
I don't think my example of children choosing parental neglect to essentially steal their parents cash for themselves is an isolated incident.
Your parents' money is for their benefit, not yours. And if the government helps them, in a time of emergency, then why are you entitled so such money and not the tax payers who actually paid for their care?
I literally get sick to my stomach thinking about compromised elderly being "cared for" by their children in such a way.
I find these methods of "preserving an estate" for inheritance to adult children morally troubling. I know folks who have followed all the rules, so they did nothing "illegal" (like the scenario you outlined above). But somehow it just hits me wrong that the state picks up their parent's care while they will inherit money that should have gone for her care.
I can see trying to preserve assets for a remaining spouse. Absolutely! But when that parent is widowed/divorced . . . and it is only the adult children who are "protecting" the money . . . it seems wrong that taxpayers are picking up the tab for their mother/father's care.
On the other hand, I can surely understand why a parent would want to preserve assets such as land for inheritance.
In any case, I find it troubling when large estates have been "hidden" while the bills are being paid by taxpayers.
I find these methods of "preserving an estate" for inheritance to adult children morally troubling. I know folks who have followed all the rules, so they did nothing "illegal" (like the scenario you outlined above). But somehow it just hits me wrong that the state picks up their parent's care while they will inherit money that should have gone for her care.
I can see trying to preserve assets for a remaining spouse. Absolutely! But when that parent is widowed/divorced . . . and it is only the adult children who are "protecting" the money . . . it seems wrong that taxpayers are picking up the tab for their mother/father's care.
On the other hand, I can surely understand why a parent would want to preserve assets such as land for inheritance.
In any case, I find it troubling when large estates have been "hidden" while the bills are being paid by taxpayers.
^^^ This ^^^
It becomes game theoretic. When immoral and possibly illegal asset protection is used so The State picks up the tab, it is in fact paid by The Rest Of Us. If THEY are doing it to stick me with the tab, then game theory dictates I should do it to stick my mom's tab back on them.
I don't know what the solution is. A hundred years ago, the aged were cared for by families for the most part, and charity when there was no family. Personal responsibility was paramount because there was no safety net.
Nowadays, an aging elder would do well to spend all their money taking a round-the-world cruize enjoying themselves, spending down to the poverty level, return to the USA and say "OK, I'm here; I'm indigent; take care of me." Enlightened self-interest coupled with the knowledge of game theory dictates that because you can stick the costs of your end-of-life care on The State that you should do so.
I prefer a world of personal responsibility. I guess I'm in favor of returning to the world of Personal Responsibility. Severely curtail the safety net. "Oh - you don't have money to pay for end-of-life? Too bad for you; I guess you shouldn't have spent your money on new cars and clothes and fancy home electronics 20 years ago."
Oh, absolutely. If there is money in an estate, they shouldn't get Medicaid in the first place.
However, there was a five-year rule in place (I think it used to be 3 years), but some states are changing that.
All of the people I know, though, sold their parents house to pay for their care in nursing homes, and used whatever their parents had in the bank. When that ran out, the parents went on Medicaid.
Also, some spouses were allowed to stay in their homes when their loved ones went into a nursing home, not realizing that the house may eventually need to be sold, anyway.
The ones I worry about are family farms, etc, where the family makes their living from the land. What happens then?
I'd have no problem with the government or Medicaid exempting or allowing for say -- one or two thousand dollars per child to be protected or exempted for inheritance or transfer. Because as it is now a parent could give a child money for a car or house downpayment or any number of very legitimate and needy reasons, with no idea they'd ever be in need of Medicaid. And I don't think it's fair to go back and get that money either.
I don't think it's unreasonable to allow a parent to leave a lousy, nominal one or two thousand to a child.
So because of that I have no problem at all with people protecting assets, AND as much as they can.
In cases like ocnjgirl's and others the one or two thousand that would be allowed would only be PAYBACK for money the adult child spent on the parent's care. So it's not like that would be inherited bonus money, it'd be more like reimbursement.
I do think the adult child could be reimbursed with documentation during the send down. But part of the reason adult child would pay for things in the first place is to stretch the parent's money so their money was NOT spent down so quickly. Not to mention buying things because the 'allowance' for sundries isn't enough.
All the money spent on a parent's care is that much less money that the adult child can save for his or her OWN old age. Then what. That only increases the chances that these adult children will be on Medicaid even SOONER than their parents were.
So if you can legally transfer or protect assets I say do it. My ONLY issue would be when the parent's care is compromised.
Quote:
Severely curtail the safety net. "Oh - you don't have money to pay for end-of-life? Too bad for you; I guess you shouldn't have spent your money on new cars and clothes and fancy home electronics 20 years ago."
I find that very simplistic.
So a person is never to take a vacation or spend money on travel -- or technically -- anything else that's not subsistence living -- because they might need some kind of government help -- 20 YEARS later!? With that kind of logic -- a 30 year-old -- shouldn't buy a plant, or a video game, or upgrade their cable package, or an extra paid of shoes, or eat out or rent a movie either -- because that money adds up -- and they might need Medicaid 40 years later. Really?
I find that very simplistic.
So a person is never to take a vacation or spend money on travel -- or technically -- anything else that's not subsistence living -- because they might need some kind of government help -- 20 YEARS later!? With that kind of logic -- a 30 year-old -- shouldn't buy a plant, or a video game, or upgrade their cable package, or an extra paid of shoes, or eat out or rent a movie either -- because that money adds up -- and they might need Medicaid 40 years later. Really?
And of course with life expectancy increasing ever more, it gets harder and harder to determine how much someone will really need to have saved by the time they hit their elderly years.
It becomes game theoretic. When immoral and possibly illegal asset protection is used so The State picks up the tab, it is in fact paid by The Rest Of Us. If THEY are doing it to stick me with the tab, then game theory dictates I should do it to stick my mom's tab back on them.
I don't know what the solution is. A hundred years ago, the aged were cared for by families for the most part, and charity when there was no family. Personal responsibility was paramount because there was no safety net.
Nowadays, an aging elder would do well to spend all their money taking a round-the-world cruize enjoying themselves, spending down to the poverty level, return to the USA and say "OK, I'm here; I'm indigent; take care of me." Enlightened self-interest coupled with the knowledge of game theory dictates that because you can stick the costs of your end-of-life care on The State that you should do so.
I prefer a world of personal responsibility. I guess I'm in favor of returning to the world of Personal Responsibility. Severely curtail the safety net. "Oh - you don't have money to pay for end-of-life? Too bad for you; I guess you shouldn't have spent your money on new cars and clothes and fancy home electronics 20 years ago."
My Mom had to enter the workforce with a high school diploma and a 5 and 11 year old at home after my father sustained a brain injury and had to go to a veteran's home. In 1967. What kind of jobs do you think were available to my mom? She went to secretarial school and raised us on what was an unlivable wage, my grandparents had to help pay our rent. She did the best she could. She has a $400 a month pension after working for 30-some years.
Sorry our extravagant lifestyle offends you so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I may be in the minority, but I am doing this the "old-fashioned" way! I am honored to be able to care for the person who cared for me. No one said it is easy, but it is a part of life. Sometimes another person's situation is different, I am not the one to judge. But services have to be paid for, somehow.
