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.
But your position as stated flies directly in the face of the Proud-Self-Sufficient-Conservative-Pulling-His-Own-Weight-From-Cradle-To-Grave when you add that little "Unless circumstances warrant otherwise......" does it not?
Just ask'n.
No, not in our case it doesn't because my grandmother's bank accounts are still in tact. She has, and will continue to pay for her share of health related expenses. The assets in question are many acres of land the family has held for more than 200 years. Her share has been transferred.
Most of you don't seem to know that we're talking about Medicaid here. Since Medicaid applies to poor people, the expectation is that there's not much in the way of available assets anyway. Regardless, if there are assets, however meager they are, I would encourage families to make the decision that's right for them. If that means they decide to transfer assets near and dear to them, then I have no objection to that.
The government should not have set up Medicaid to fund poor peoples' healthcare if it didn't have the means for actually paying for it without taking from its citizens. How can one defend Medicaid as a public health law when the law itself relies in part on taking personal assets? There is something fundamentally wrong with mandating poor people be covered by Medicaid and then taking their property to pay for it.
You will not change my mind on this aspect of the law.
Good god people. I feel like I stepped into the twilight zone. The most outspoken conservatives are complaining that LTC isn't free and that they have to pay for the services they use. Just buy the LTC insurance if you have assets.
Absolutely true. My grandmother has LTC insurance. We transferred assets as a result of being made aware of the 5 year lookback, not because we ever expected to actually be caught up in such a situation. It was basically an eye opener to government policy in general, however inapplicable it is to her/us.
DUH! HE SPENT their assets on care already. You are trying to leech onto others while enjoying assets still held.
A 1st grader could have seen through your hypocrisy.
PS, If you spend your assets on LTC on Granny, and need taxpayer help for Grandpa, I'm fine with that. But if you hold it away both times, you're just a Welfare recipient. The government should SEIZE your assets to recover on behalf of taxpayers.
My grandma is not on Medicaid, and never will be, so your point is bunk. There is no hypocrisy. Got it?
As for the rest of the post.......That's exactly my point Bob. Since the assets are gone, who will pay for her care?
Can you read? She works to support herself, and refuses to go on any type of welfare, or even come live with me as I have offered. So no, the taxpayers are not and will not be supporting her. She will support herself, until she decides to come live with me then I will support her.
Supporting herself means she can pay for her own elder care without the assistance of Medicaid?
Absolutely true. My grandmother has LTC insurance. We transferred assets as a result of being made aware of the 5 year lookback, not because we ever expected to actually be caught up in such a situation. It was basically an eye opener to government policy in general, however inapplicable it is to her/us.
Now you tell us. Did you withhold this info in the beginning for the sole purpose of creating controversy, did you just make it up or did you just (conveniently) forget to mention it?
Supporting herself means she can pay for her own elder care without the assistance of Medicaid?
No, it means that her family will support her. She is on medicare which she paid in to during a lifetime of working and paying in to social security, and if she needs any care the family will provide it. That is what we do, we support and care for our family. We don't worry about having an inheritance. We all live self sufficiently.
Now you tell us. Did you withhold this info in the beginning for the sole purpose of creating controversy, did you just make it up or did you just (conveniently) forget to mention it?
There was never any controversy. I never once implied that assets were being transferred to obtain Medicaid. I merely stated that her previous illness brought to light the 5 year look back. Go back and read my first post. If you read into something that wasn't there, that's not really my fault.
There was never any controversy. I never once implied that assets were being transferred to obtain Medicaid. I merely stated that her previous illness brought to light the 5 year look back. Go back and read my first post. If you read into something that wasn't there, that's not really my fault.
You've been backing ripping-off the taxpayers all along. Now I think you've been disingenuous for the same period of time. And yes, it is your fault. Bush didn't do it!
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.
