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.
Can we stipulate that most people who need care -- don't need "nursing" care?
If so, perhaps we as a society should think about deciding whether to tackle multiple factors and issues regarding long term care and how to pay for it -- OR just tackle issues one at a time. And even then we have to decide: do we tackle the "easiest" thing first....even if it doesn't affect that many people or cost that much money. Or go straight for the elephant in the room that's costing gazillions but is harder to tackle and a more intricate problem.
ETA: If I may clarify. How to pay for care....I don't know if it's a problem. It's any issue -- how to pay for it. There are various factors but basically that's what it comes down to how to PAY for it.
I'd say abuse in nursing homes... abuse of the vulnerable, seek and feeble elderly -- or anyone for that matter -- being beaten and physically abused in ways we don't even want to think about -- with examples caught on tape...now THAT is a problem. And it's one that needs to be dealt with regardless of the cost or care issue.
Should people want more info there are other threads about this on the caregiving board where it has also been discussed. They are called filial responsibility laws. Such laws have been on the books for years in some states. But were never (hardly ever) enforced.
These laws have been a concern to some of us on the caregiving board for some time. One reason being -- if and adult is paying for their parents caregiving -- that takes away from them being able to save for THEIR OWN caregiving needs. Let alone being forced to pay for a parent who has been a parent abusive, or one with whom you're estranged. There is concern that as states get more strapped for money, they'll start enforcing these laws more.
I know of at least one case in PA where the son was indeed found responsible for payment for his mom's nursing home stay. He appealed to the state supreme court and still lost on appeal.
These laws are an anachronism from the days when every succeeding generation tended to best the previous ones financially.
Those days ended with the end of the 20th Century.
Here's a sentence that sends shivers down the spines of every Medicaid agency in all 50 states.
Quote:
According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, up from 46.5 percent in 2012. This represents the highest percentage of childless women since the bureau started tracking that data in 1976.
Let me see if I can translate that into the terrifying statistic it is: 1 out of every 2 women age 15 to 44 have foregone having kids. That means that the likelihood is the 50 of these women will be "elder orphans" no one--read that again: NO ONE to take care of them.
Culturally we rely on children to look after parents in their twilight. But these women elected to not have kids and not having kids virtually assures us the states are going to have to take up the slack of paying to house and feed them. Recall my earlier statistics $7000/month for nursing care. Then ask yourself," If there are no children and no close relatives to take care of them, then who in God's name is going to take care of them" How do the states, many already near bankruptcy, pay a bill like $10,000/month (inflation) to house, feed and look after these millions upon millions of women??????
My wife and I are such people. We didn't have children and so there's no one to look after me if my wife should die. If I died my wife at least has two younger sisters to look after her and they are very close. With my health problems should I find myself old, infirmed with nobody around I haven't got the slightest qualms religiously, morally or practically about just traveling to Switzerland to take advantage of their euthanasia laws. Not many people would choose such a path. I have given it serious consideration over the years should things go south for me and I have inured myself to the idea. I have no problem with it.
This is a ticking time bomb for state governments. I have no idea how they're going to solve this. The sheer numbers make this a problem big enough the swamp the entire country financially. They can levy taxes to pay for it but if only 50% of women are having kids where is the tax base going to come from?
Here's a sentence that sends shivers down the spines of every Medicaid agency in all 50 states.
Let me see if I can translate that into the terrifying statistic it is: 1 out of every 2 women age 15 to 44 have foregone having kids. That means that the likelihood is the 50 of these women will be "elder orphans" no one--read that again: NO ONE to take care of them.
Culturally we rely on children to look after parents in their twilight. But these women elected to not have kids and not having kids virtually assures us the states are going to have to take up the slack of paying to house and feed them. Recall my earlier statistics $7000/month for nursing care. Then ask yourself," If there are no children and no close relatives to take care of them, then who in God's name is going to take care of them" How do the states, many already near bankruptcy, pay a bill like $10,000/month (inflation) to house, feed and look after these millions upon millions of women??????
My wife and I are such people. We didn't have children and so there's no one to look after me if my wife should die. If I died my wife at least has two younger sisters to look after her and they are very close. With my health problems should I find myself old, infirmed with nobody around I haven't got the slightest qualms religiously, morally or practically about just traveling to Switzerland to take advantage of their euthanasia laws. Not many people would choose such a path. I have given it serious consideration over the years should things go south for me and I have inured myself to the idea. I have no problem with it.
This is a ticking time bomb for state governments. I have no idea how they're going to solve this. The sheer numbers make this a problem big enough the swamp the entire country financially. They can levy taxes to pay for it but if only 50% of women are having kids where is the tax base going to come from?
Tax base schmacks base, we need a BIG WALL ... keepin' them illegulls outta here ... and alla the Injuns on thar H1Bs.... keep 'em out! / sarc
The entire lookback idea is misguided....so ELIMINATE the lookback as in not be able to look back, is right...That might not be what you meant but it's what I mean. AND IF we keep it 5 years is certainly to too long. We should go back to 3 or even 2.
If a person is 40 or 50 and gives an adult child money for books, or helps them pay for their degree, or helps them get a car so they can get to their first job, or helps their child with a down payment on a house and ten years later needs a nursing home. Was that a gift to get around paying for their own care?
So a parent can NEVER EVER give money to an adult child, just because that parent MIGHT need a nursing home in 8 years? An elderly person can NEVER give a grand kid money for anything?
A healthy parent could help the child with moving expenses, and the next day be in a car wreck. Clearly there was not even a thought to I'll "gift' this to you so when I'm 80 the state can pay for my care."
Having a look back period is not the answer.
I think a 2-year lookback is reasonable when the elder parent has Alzheimer's disease, because it should be obvious that the parent is going to need care, it isn't the kind of thing where someone could reasonably believe that the elder is independent and then suddenly they need assisted living. Doesn't happen, the progression is gradual.
But if the elder parent falls one day and hits their head and undergoes unexpected brain damage...then yes, I would say the lookback period in that case should be zero.
Medicaid would pay much less for this than they would for Assisted living or other caregiving arrangements. Eventually Medicaid might have to pay for AL or NH stays, like they have been, but much of the expense would be deferred until the person is older.
Yes and somebody has to pay the increased taxes to raise the additional revenues needed as costs spiral up
I foresee the day when states will eliminate the lookout period entirely or greatly extend it to 20 years or something. The states are going to be bankrupted by this iceberg called "baby boomers who are elder orphans". That term should strike the worst kind of fear in the government body of every state. Basically it means that something like 30 million BB's have no family or children to take care of them. In 10 years the average cost of a nursing home will be $10,000/month; it's $7,000/month right now. Add Alzheimer care into that and it's potentially a 2 trillion dollar cost per year for the states, going up every year from there until the last of the BB's starting dying off around 2050 or so and then the costs will start to lower. The states won't survive this Greenland-sized iceberg.
Husband and I in the 30 million BB"s with no family or children. We have more than enough money to take care of ourselves should we need nursing care. I also have a $500,000 whole life policy/LTC insurance. 7 figure house paid for, not debts, desires met, etc. I'm sure there are a few million more boomers in our position who have thought this through and have planned. What are the chances someone will end up in a home?
Some will die long before they need nursing care if we don't take care of the health insurance issue first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation
I just looked it up on the tax assessor's website and it's estimated value today is only about $52,000. The woman had one daughter who was divorced and a low income earner herself. All of my first cousins, 19 to about 40, are worse off than I am, and none of us can afford skilled care for even one person on an extended basis.
Trying to force us to pay for our parents' care is just going to drag us down with the dying senior.
You are not who they are after. They are after the rich and greedy, who want free (crappy) medicaid care, while passing one millions to their entitled offspring.
I'd rather have my mother move in with me than put her in a nursing home anyway.
That sounds very noble, but it wouldn't be the best thing for mother. By the time a parent reaches the nursing home stage he or she needs more care than what the children can provide in the home. The children are generally in their 60s by then, and in shaky health themselves.
Children are already taking care of their parents a lot longer than their parents took care of them (if the kids left home at 19 or 20 rather than at 40!). Hubby and I are in our Golden Years. We're old and we're too tired to take in and care for aging parents than require 24 hour supervision.
This problem will not solve itself, and it will only get worse. The cost of nursing home care is outrageous. We taxpayers are already maxed out. The ultimate solution to this problem might be too scary to contemplate right now.
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.
