U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-15-2014, 06:50 AM
 
Location: rain city
2,958 posts, read 11,360,162 times
Reputation: 4909

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
NY ,FLORIDA AND CT...... there may be others on a case by case.

So three then.

The other 47 states will seize all of the assets
of of the elderly who enter long term care when tossed onto Medicaid.

I rest my case.

After two or three generations of this kind of theft, the American people will no longer have any wealth to pass on to future generations after government has taken everything in the last days of life, and handed it over to the 'care' industry.

It would seem pretty clear where this asset stripping plan is headed. To the 1% and beyond!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-15-2014, 07:27 AM
 
13,322 posts, read 25,578,684 times
Reputation: 20520
Last time I looked, I don't work for nothing. Why shouldn't a person's assets go to pay for their care?

My father had to go to a Medicaid nursing home in the last few weeks of his life. He had no assets, zip. He lived in a tiny trailer that would cost thousands to bring it up to code to sell it if in fact it could be brought up at all, and would have fetched *maybe* $2k. To demolish and remove it from the park would have easily cost a couple of thousand dollars. However, Medicaid said that it was an asset and wanted my sister (the heir) to reimburse Medicaid for the presumed value of a hypothetical sale. The park owner very generously saved us both the trouble by taking possession and, as far as I know, had it demolished and removed on her own nickel. She wanted to give my sister $500 for it and I insisted that would be taking advantage of her generosity and my sister should just sign it over. I mean, the woman saved my sister (and me, since I would have shared the expense) a couple of thousand dollars and a whole lot of trouble.

My mother had been the owner of the trailer, but died years before my father. She had been in medical hospital for three days and had she gone directly into a nursing home then for hospice care, Medicare would have covered the hospice care. If she went into hospice from home, she (meaning me) would have been on the hook for three months payment before Medicare kicked in. At least, that's my understanding. My father kept her home in the trailer in bad shape, she went into a hospice for her last six days and there was no charge. A good thing, since neither of them had a proverbial pot. This was in New Jersey.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2014, 07:53 AM
 
71,706 posts, read 71,829,507 times
Reputation: 49273
Quote:
Originally Posted by azoria View Post
So three then.

The other 47 states will seize all of the assets
of of the elderly who enter long term care when tossed onto Medicaid.

I rest my case.

After two or three generations of this kind of theft, the American people will no longer have any wealth to pass on to future generations after government has taken everything in the last days of life, and handed it over to the 'care' industry.

It would seem pretty clear where this asset stripping plan is headed. To the 1% and beyond!
we can't say about the other states, the right of spousal refusal is federal law. it is only I know these three states have turned to negotiation as the routine for sure..

many more states may be doing it as well only I don't know and can't say..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2014, 08:37 AM
 
29,784 posts, read 34,885,423 times
Reputation: 11710
Quote:
Originally Posted by azoria View Post
So three then.

The other 47 states will seize all of the assets
of of the elderly who enter long term care when tossed onto Medicaid.

I rest my case.

After two or three generations of this kind of theft, the American people will no longer have any wealth to pass on to future generations after government has taken everything in the last days of life, and handed it over to the 'care' industry.

It would seem pretty clear where this asset stripping plan is headed. To the 1% and beyond!
Remember in the absence of having your own money to pay for Nursing Home care you have to have tax revenue used or other peoples money. At any rate someone is going to pay, either the family receiving the services or tax payers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2014, 08:57 AM
 
1,536 posts, read 1,443,272 times
Reputation: 11204
Quote:
Originally Posted by azoria View Post
So three then.

The other 47 states will seize all of the assets of of the elderly who enter long term care when tossed onto Medicaid.

I rest my case.

After two or three generations of this kind of theft, the American people will no longer have any wealth to pass on to future generations after government has taken everything in the last days of life, and handed it over to the 'care' industry.

It would seem pretty clear where this asset stripping plan is headed. To the 1% and beyond!

How is it theft? Nursing home care is expensive. Why shouldn't the person getting the care pay for it if they have assets? The taxpayers shouldn't have to forfeit their assets to foot the bill for your care so you can pass your assets on to "future generations." If you want to pass on wealth to future generations, you're going to have to amass sufficient wealth to have something left over after paying for your care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2014, 09:09 AM
 
29,784 posts, read 34,885,423 times
Reputation: 11710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaofan View Post
How is it theft? Nursing home care is expensive. Why shouldn't the person getting the care pay for it if they have assets? The taxpayers shouldn't have to forfeit their assets to foot the bill for your care so you can pass your assets on to "future generations." If you want to pass on wealth to future generations, you're going to have to amass sufficient wealth to have something left over after paying for your care.
Or decline the opportunity for nursing home care and let your heirs enjoy the fruits of your passing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2014, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Southwest Washington State
21,905 posts, read 14,406,502 times
Reputation: 30811
OP needs to speak with someone at the local dept of aging in his or her hometown, or nearest city. Things are different in different states. But generally, Medicare does not pay for housing in an ALF. If the client meets the qualifications, then Medicaid will pay. If the client has some savings and income, then he or she might be admitted into an ALF. It might be that after assets are exhausted, the client would be placed on Medicaid and allowed to stay, or not allowed to stay. State laws differ.

When you begin this journey with an elder, you need to get all the info you can from your state's dept of aging, which is probably a division of the division of social services. If there are sizeable assets involved, then an opinion from an attorney who is knowledgeable in this area is advised.

In my mom's case, her income and assets covered her care for 7 years until she died. But she was lucky to have been grandfathered into collecting both teacher's pension and my dad's SS. Her assets were the proceeds of the sale of her condo. She also had savings. Without these income streams and assets, she probably would have ended up on Medicaid. Being on Medicaid limits your choices.

Get advice on this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2014, 03:28 AM
 
71,706 posts, read 71,829,507 times
Reputation: 49273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaofan View Post
How is it theft? Nursing home care is expensive. Why shouldn't the person getting the care pay for it if they have assets? The taxpayers shouldn't have to forfeit their assets to foot the bill for your care so you can pass your assets on to "future generations." If you want to pass on wealth to future generations, you're going to have to amass sufficient wealth to have something left over after paying for your care.
the truth is the plan anyway of many states is to have tax payers fund long term care. many states offer partnership plans.

here in ny all i have to do is buy 3 years of coverage , not even 5 years in a partnership plan , which should end up costing about 1 years premiums and i go right to extended medicaid once the insurance runs out regardless of assets or income.

ny says it is okay if tax payers fund you and you have assets. check out partnership plans and you will find many states offer the same deal.

so basically they are saying pay for 1 years premium and you are covered for 3 years and after that it is okay if tax payers cover your expenses.

not only is asset shifting not required but the medicaid income limits for the stay at home spouse is lifted as well.

finding other legal ways of not having to spend that 1 years long term care expense are just as acceptable. if it wasn't they would shut down the legal manipulations of utilizing loans and other means through asset shifting and trusts to allow you to go on medicaid and have lots of assets..

these tools are in place and are no different than our income tax code .

our income tax code says your fair share of taxes is whatever you can legally figure out you have to pay no matter how low you legally can make them.

well no different in this case. the tools are left in place to utilize and if you learn how to utilize them your fair share will be whatever it works out to which may be zero before the state picks up the tab.


think about this very carefully and you will realize this isn't some criminal , medicaid fraud act to preserve assets. it is followng the rules and laws put in place just like the tax code and you are given that ability by the states decision to make it okay for tax payers to fund long term care .

otherwisde these things wouldn't exist to make it possible to not spend your own assets.

partnership plans demonstrate that by jumping one small hurdle the state says it is okay , we will fund your LTC AND IT IS OKAY. . there are other means as well that act as a small hurdle and once you jump those it is still okay.


if it wasn't for states encouraging folks to pay their lowest legal fair share i would agree that not paying your way is immoral or maybe fraud but the fact is it is no different than our income tax code which says your fair share is whatever you legally figure out you have to pay.

Last edited by mathjak107; 09-17-2014 at 03:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2014, 04:23 AM
 
71,706 posts, read 71,829,507 times
Reputation: 49273
the biggest issue people make when it comes to their financial lives is they never sleep with the enemy.

folks only know what they know because they tend to hang out with and read only and mimic those that support their views.

in short they miss out on an entire education because they never sleep with the enemy.

you see it here day after day as the same posters spend their time digging up every article about how bad suppossedly we are doing. they never post an article that counters their view . but perhaps if they slept with the enemy more they would get a much broader view of reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2014, 09:55 AM
 
4,776 posts, read 6,619,483 times
Reputation: 6785
I guess I don't see anything wrong with the state requiring that a person use their own money to fund their nursing home care. It's expensive. If Medicaid is paying it, then you and I are paying it, and that's not exactly fair if the person has assets that could be used to pay it.

If a family took care of an elderly loved one at home it would require 24-hour nursing care, which is also very expensive, maybe even more than a nursing home? Not many people can afford that. And neither do many people have the nursing expertise or the physical stamina to tend to an incapacitated parent in their home 24/7/365. My mom did it for my dad when he was dying of cancer, but (a) she had a little home health help and (b) there was a near end in sight. Still, it was extremely hard on her, and she was only in her late 50s.

The only alternative is to let the poor old person rot away at home until they die....no one but a psychopath is going to do that to their parent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top