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.
You are comparing apples to oranges here. Not everyone plans for end of life care and the US does take care of our old. Medicaid is ran by the states...not the feds. They have rules, let's play within them.
No we don't. We provide for the poor. Bill gates isn't getting Medicaid services unless he becomes poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwestlaxer
Medicare and Social Security is a giant Ponzi scheme. Don't believe me? Tell me why they are not required to prove solvency through reserves? (they don't have to have reserves)
Have you ever read a SS Trustee's report? They have reserves and go through actuarial testing every year. OP was complaining that we don't have LTC for everyone and therefore he should not be required to pay. The flaw in his logic is the care that is available to everyone is funded with a special tax. We could expand LTC to cover everyone regardless of need, but the Medicare tax would go up. In lieu of higher taxes people choose LTC insurance. Poor people don't buy LTC because they have Medicaid to fall back on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwestlaxer
I will never see the amount I have paid into the system...but the folks that are using it are easily seeing a hefty return on what they put in.
No they aren't. The early participants saw a healthy return, but everyone else saw a declining return. SS isn't what my post was addressing though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwestlaxer
Those that plan (especially with the LTC Partnership programs) get to keep and pass down their legacy. Those that don't have to spend down and leave nothing
OP is wanting a third option. Don't plan and keep the money. There are legal ways to do what he wants, but his options are limited because there was no planning and now it is a bit late. Hence the need for an attorney.
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwestlaxer
So let's not bash the OP for being American...it's their (US/STATES) rules...don't like it...vote...or better yet...move.
I don't really care what the OP does. I told him on the first page that he needs a lawyer because 1) his parents are married and his dad has assets, 2) A Roth IRA isn't usually exempt, 3) there are legal ways around the Medicaid rules, 4) Medicaid can come after assets.
As long as health care is treated as a property right and not a moral right in this country, I feel zero compulsion to "feel bad". Because health care is a property right, I will use any legal means to protect as much of my family's property as a prudent financial planning decision.
Thanks, this sounds better than nothing. I will talk to my lawyer about it.
actually medicaid has provisions for the right of a spouse to say no , i am not paying.
of course medicaid has the right to recovery.
well medicaid sued for recovery in CT. and the judge ruled that he was not going to impovish the people of his state because the country has a bad plan for long term care.
he ordered medicaid and mrs jones to reach an agreement to pay whatever she could without effecting her lifestyle.
ny and florida have taken similiar stances . at this point everything is a negotiation and no one is being sued.
why do i want a long term care policy? because the right to say no only applys to nursing home care.
i want the policy so i can stay at home as long as possible or my wife can stay home.
If she was a lifetime smoker and got lung cancer, I would agree with you. My mother's illness was not caused by anything she or my family did. A societal safety net should exist for things like this, and because it doesn't, I don't have the slightest issue using any legal method to protect as much of my mother's life time of savings and hard work as possible.
Oh my god, you've got to be kidding me. People make investments with their children/heirs in mind all of the time. I don't "COVET" it. I'm not trying to withhold her care so I can have it. I will spend every last dime if it is necessary for her to have the proper end of life care, but if there is a way to protect it, why wouldn't I?
Don't try to moralize when there is no moral issue here. Asset protection is a very real investment consideration, and people do it all of the time. Multi-millionaires set up all kinds of trusts to protect their assets upon their deaths so their heirs don't have to pay estate taxes, but for some reason my trying to protect a paltry $60,000 that my mom wanted me to have (note that she made me her beneficiary on her own accord when I was still a minor) in the first place is somehow morally and ethically repugnant?
If you don't have advice, kindly don't say anything at all.
Your post is illustrative of an attitude that infects many Americans today. Its the notion that you ought to be able to have your cake and eat it too. You want your mother to get expensive services, yet you see no obligation to pay for any of it. You say that "a societal safety net should exist for things like this". Who should pay for this safety net? You? How much do you pay in federal income taxes? At one point, Congress enacted a law that provided for federal long term care insurance. Guess what? It got repealed because the increased taxes were unpopular.
I agree that your family is in a tough situation and for that you have my sympathy. However, people often look at mortality tables and assume that if the average life expectancy for a woman is 81, than that's how old mom will live to be. All these statistics do is reflect an average. Some people live longer than the average and more importantly some people do not live as long as the average life expectancy is. I know many people who have died in their fifties and sixties from some form of cancer.
As someone else has already said, the first and foremost use for your mother's money is to pay for her expenses. Only if there is something left over, should you receive that money.
Each state has its own rules and regulations regarding assets that are exempt from Medicaid lookback. For instance, in Florida, your homestead and annuities are exempt from Medicaid. You would have to be a fool to to take advantage of these laws that allow you to keep a portion of your assets to pass to your heirs. I would further state to all those that argue it is immoral or unethical, it is not. The Medicaid recipient has most likely spent their life putting money into the system and deserve in the end to get a little in return.
Each state has its own rules and regulations regarding assets that are exempt from Medicaid lookback. For instance, in Florida, your homestead and annuities are exempt from Medicaid. You would have to be a fool to to take advantage of these laws that allow you to keep a portion of your assets to pass to your heirs. I would further state to all those that argue it is immoral or unethical, it is not. The Medicaid recipient has most likely spent their life putting money into the system and deserve in the end to get a little in return.
Legally, the OP is well within his rights to shield as much as he can and he should do so.
Ethically though? I would argue that OP is trying to circumvent the intent of the law and has no moral high ground to stand on.
From a societal cost standpoint I don't think it matters much. We spend on Medicare, but we won't be spending on SS and we are only talking about $60K anyway. I would much rather have people use Medicare than have a corporation sucking on the government teat.
Your post is illustrative of an attitude that infects many Americans today. Its the notion that you ought to be able to have your cake and eat it too. You want your mother to get expensive services, yet you see no obligation to pay for any of it. You say that "a societal safety net should exist for things like this". Who should pay for this safety net? You? How much do you pay in federal income taxes? At one point, Congress enacted a law that provided for federal long term care insurance. Guess what? It got repealed because the increased taxes were unpopular.
I agree that your family is in a tough situation and for that you have my sympathy. However, people often look at mortality tables and assume that if the average life expectancy for a woman is 81, than that's how old mom will live to be. All these statistics do is reflect an average. Some people live longer than the average and more importantly some people do not live as long as the average life expectancy is. I know many people who have died in their fifties and sixties from some form of cancer.
As someone else has already said, the first and foremost use for your mother's money is to pay for her expenses. Only if there is something left over, should you receive that money.
I pay 24% taxes because I work for a living and don't have clever ways to hide my wealth like the small minority of Americans who own 40% of this country. But please don't pick on them, save your vitriol for the middle class that is constantly one catastrophe away from being wiped out. My parents worked very hard, including my mom, even though Americans don't seem to value raising children to be smart and good people as equal to working 40 hours a week. I'll be damned if I can't save what I can.
I asked for financial advice, but clearly this is an issue for a lawyer, so I'm going to stop replying after this because I didn't create this thread to debate the merits of Medicaid.
Cigur11, I'd urge to please keep us updated. Many of us learn from each other. I know Mathjack has filled in some grey areas for me, and helped me with something I wasn't sure about.
I've said it before: don't let others upset you. Sure there are people who don't really add anything helpful. But there is also some very good information and education here.
it is a subject very near and dear to me since we are at the junction of having to make the decision about long term care protection.
it just cost us 5k to consult with one of ny's top attorneys in this matter to learn the real deal and of course to re-do all our important documents like our wills, power of attorney , living wills and a disclaimer trust.
well worth every penny on the tax savings alone from local estate taxes .
but we got a great education on the subject of medicaid and the what if's.
While the OP isn't reading this anymore (theoretically), I just want to throw out why some of us are more than a little frustrated by this attitude.
You know what's not fair? Getting cancer in your 20s. I did it. Dealing with a stage IV cancer diagnosis at 23 a few months into my first job is something I wouldn't wish on anyone. Having to work full time through treatment against doctor's orders has had damaging, potentially lifelong health implications but there were no social safety nets for me. As a renter who relied on public transit, I couldn't spend down my meager assets to get below the impossibly low threshholds because I could risk homelessness. In the end, I was tens of thousands of dollars in debt WITH HEALTH INSURANCE with a few thousand in the bank to keep paying for rent. I know more than a few young adult cancer survivors who are homeless as we speak. I know more who hid their illness from their workplace - including a 22 year old with stage III colon cancer who was back at Whole Foods stacking boxes a week after major abdominal surgery.
When I see people who DON'T have $60,000 they can spend toward their care struggling, forgoing medications (as I have done), filing for bankruptcy, etc. all because they had the misfortune of being diagnosed with a serious illness before they had time to build their careers or save, can you blame me for wanting to throw the book at you?
Your mother NEVER should have told you the money was for you. If there is money leftover, fine. But that money is money that she saved for her future care. If you got it in the end, great! But there were other ways of saving money for you that she chose not to take. I know people in their 20s and 30s who have to cash in their entire 401Ks to pay for medical bills. They don't have years to build that back up if they survive. If they pass away, they're often leaving their families in a ton of debt because their small savings and perhaps a life insurance policy (if they didn't lose it due to job interruptions) didn't cover it all. Lots of things in life are unfair. We should do what we can to help those who really need it. While your situation is lamentable, you're not in need.
Social safety nets are limited as it is - why should we sit back and be happy about someone who really doesn't need it trying to take advantage?
If there is money leftover, fine. But that money is money that she saved for her future care. If you got it in the end, great!
Exactly.
The OP only seems to care about preserving HIS inheritance....
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.
