Covid virus in phoenix (credit card, new home, school tuition)
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.
Yep, all this was a wake up call for us as well. You basically surrender everything (even your own home) to the damn government.
As a taxpayer, why should people pay for seniors when they land in an expensive home all the while they have assets? We all know the game (put it in someone else's name x years before it happens).
My wife asked about this for her mom (86 and still at home). A senior care facility is approaching fast for her. I said no way. I'll be damned if I am going to play a game so that you and everyone can pay for her while I prepare to line our pockets. Because that's the real game. To "give to the kids".
I'm kind of surprised you of all people think I should subsidize people who have the wealth to contribute. I wish they would do away with the 5-year law. A little personal responsibility is in order. Don't you think? I'm still working to help pay for a senior home if that ever happens. While I may fall short, that's MY responsibility. Do you think I deserve a world-class expensive nursing home on the "government" (taxpayers). Your POV here is pretty inconsistent based on the rest of your opinions.
As a taxpayer, why should people pay for seniors when they land in an expensive home all the while they have assets? We all know the game (put it in someone else's name x years before it happens).
My wife asked about this for her mom (86 and still at home). A senior care facility is approaching fast for her. I said no way. I'll be damned if I am going to play a game so that you and everyone can pay for her while I prepare to line our pockets. Because that's the real game. To "give to the kids".
I'm kind of surprised you of all people think I should subsidize people who have the wealth to contribute. I wish they would do away with the 5-year law. A little personal responsibility is in order. Don't you think? I'm still working to help pay for a senior home if that ever happens. While I may fall short, that's MY responsibility. Do you think I deserve a world-class expensive nursing home on the "government" (taxpayers). Your POV here is pretty inconsistent based on the rest of your opinions.
What the hell are you babbling about? Never once did I say anything about subsidizing seniors or anybody else. If anything, you should commend those of us who are caring for our elders instead of throwing them into some horrid long term "care" facility ... which by the way, would be subsidized by taxpayers in many cases because as Mike from Back East clearly pointed out: Medicare pays for a patient's stay in a nursing home, but there is a limit, so Medicaid kicks in after that, which there is also a limit. Any way you look at it, going this route is a cost to taxpayers.
The only thing my parents are getting from the government is Social Security, which is a given when retirement age is reached ... AND the amount of SS a person gets is largely dependent on how much he/she earns during the working years. Aside from that, they're not sucking a dime from taxpayers. What I stated was: we are not going to subject our loved ones to expensive and neglectful nursing homes when we can be giving them the love & attention they deserve, along with seeing that they have the appropriate medical care by living with us.
We're the ones taking full responsibility. Now, how about you, who stated that you're making plans to go into a nursing home in your elder years? Regardless of who pays for your long term care, it sounds like you're doing this so you're not a "burden" on your family ... however, if your family cared about you, they would & should make sacrifices like we have to prevent the nursing home route.
You're under the false impression that I believe seniors deserve a government paid, high class nursing home. On the other hand, you think it was perfectly acceptable to have the taxpayers subsidize your kids' public education. If I were you, I'd seriously think twice about criticizing others before looking in the mirror.
What the hell are you babbling about? Never once did I say anything about subsidizing seniors or anybody else.
I only read your 1st sentence. What didn't you understand? You said "Yep, all this was a wake up call for us as well. You basically surrender everything (even your own home) to the damn government." and I quoted a single line so that you could follow along. Somehow, this got past you?
I framed a basic question. How is it fair for a person who lands up in a nursing home NOT drain their assets to help pay for atrociously expensive care all the while they have assets? Meanwhile, I am working specifically to save for such an event. But you are suggesting to be prepared by way of playing the game (I assumed this by reasoning: correct me if I am wrong) to put the home in YOUR name so "protect" your inheritance? What's next, people on welfare who have assets like my SIL can keep "her money" while taxpayers subsidize her? That's what I was 'babbling" about.
Big picture. I'm not talking about Social Security. I'm talking about people stashing their wealth and having the "government" (taxpayers are paying; not the "government"). Are you sttill confused? I'm saying you are inconsistent.
One way we can look at this Medicaid spend-down issue is that we paid federal income taxes and federal medicare taxes all of our working lives. We put skin in the game. We're shareholders in our own enterprise. Our money is in that governmental Pot O' Gold .... or as the little Irish Elf says, it's me lucky charms.
Putting our home in a trust to protect it from the Medicaid spend-down is no different than a business setting up a corporate framework to shield them from liability. If that is "legal and moral" for a business then it is legal and moral for us, especially since the SCOTUS says corporations are people thus it follows that people are corporations and thereby also entitled to protect our assets for our shareholders (descendants). AND since the laws of our great land allow this then there is nothing inherently wrong with protecting assets via a trust.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
I only read your 1st sentence. What didn't you understand? You said "Yep, all this was a wake up call for us as well. You basically surrender everything (even your own home) to the damn government." and I quoted a single line so that you could follow along. Somehow, this got past you?
I framed a basic question. How is it fair for a person who lands up in a nursing home NOT drain their assets to help pay for atrociously expensive care all the while they have assets? Meanwhile, I am working specifically to save for such an event. But you are suggesting to be prepared by way of playing the game (I assumed this by reasoning: correct me if I am wrong) to put the home in YOUR name so "protect" your inheritance? What's next, people on welfare who have assets like my SIL can keep "her money" while taxpayers subsidize her? That's what I was 'babbling" about.
Big picture. I'm not talking about Social Security. I'm talking about people stashing their wealth and having the "government" (taxpayers are paying; not the "government"). Are you sttill confused? I'm saying you are inconsistent.
Again, you have it all wrong. It's not about inheritance, and whatever else. The house I live in currently has been my own for over 20 years, and it was only in the last few years that my mother moved in with me because she could no longer fully care for herself & became disabled. My dad had similar issues. We as a family decided it would be best to AVOID the so called nursing/senior homes because of the rampant neglect & potential for abuse. Certainly, you've heard about all the horror stories! Some of the reason did stem from cost, and we didn't see the need in paying the high prices for substandard care.
Back to your question: it's not fair for people with money stashed away to make the taxpayers pay for their long term care. I think we can agree on that. I also don't think it's exactly fair for seniors to be shoved into nursing homes if they have family close by who could be their primary caregivers. It's always best to be prepared. We're taking care of our own, doing what many would consider a valuable service, saving money, and not taking a g.d. dime from the taxpayers. I can't say the same for you and many many others who thought they were entitled to use taxpayer money for their kids' education!
... Back to your question: it's not fair for people with money stashed away to make the taxpayers pay for their long term care. I think we can agree on that. I also don't think it's exactly fair for seniors to be shoved into nursing homes if they have family close by who could be their primary caregivers. It's always best to be prepared. We're taking care of our own, doing what many would consider a valuable service, saving money, and not taking a g.d. dime from the taxpayers. I can't say the same for you and many many others who thought they were entitled to use taxpayer money for their kids' education!
If the laws allow protecting assets via trusts then why not do that have Medicaid do its job for us?
You can bet the very wealthy use every aspect of our tax laws to keep all they can for themselves.
But in a larger context I see this issue of "it's not fair for people with money stashed away to make the taxpayers pay for their long term care" as misguided. Look at all the superfund sites around the country where we taxpayers pick up the massive tab to remediate all forms of pollution left behind, even though many of these corporations took billions out in profits and have billions in assets, or they use bankruptcy laws to shield THEIR assets. Let's not be suckers here. If there are laws on the books and methods deemed legal then we have every right to use them as we see fit.
The issue of how to deal with aging parents who need care is a personal matter that each of us must decide on our own. In my Mom's case we found a truly awesome place for her, Carroll Lutheran Village in Westminster, MD, where her treatment and care were awesome. Being a full time caregiver to someone in a near vegetative state is not only exhausting but is beyond what some are capable of doing. Caring for a helpless eight pound infant is one thing, caring for a 120 pound invalid is quite another story. My family has BTDT.
We not only have our assets in a trust, we also have long term care insurance (LTCI) to cover up to 4 years in a nursing home.
I may have taken this thread a bit off topic but paying for COVID-19 care for those crippled by its many dirty tricks may be appropriate for some people in the area.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
If the laws allow protecting assets via trusts then why not do that have Medicaid do its job for us?
You can bet the very wealthy use every aspect of our tax laws to keep all they can for themselves.
But in a larger context I see this issue of "it's not fair for people with money stashed away to make the taxpayers pay for their long term care" as misguided. Look at all the superfund sites around the country where we taxpayers pick up the massive tab to remediate all forms of pollution left behind, even though many of these corporations took billions out in profits and have billions in assets, or they use bankruptcy laws to shield THEIR assets. Let's not be suckers here. If there are laws on the books and methods deemed legal then we have every right to use them as we see fit.
The issue of how to deal with aging parents who need care is a personal matter that each of us must decide on our own. In my Mom's case we found a truly awesome place for her, Carroll Lutheran Village in Westminster, MD, where her treatment and care were awesome. Being a full time caregiver to someone in a near vegetative state is not only exhausting but is beyond what some are capable of doing. Caring for a helpless eight pound infant is one thing, caring for a 120 pound invalid is quite another story. My family has BTDT.
We not only have our assets in a trust, we also have long term care insurance (LTCI) to cover up to 4 years in a nursing home.
I may have taken this thread a bit off topic but paying for COVID-19 care for those crippled by its many dirty tricks may be appropriate for some people in the area.
I understand what you're saying, but in my case it's a matter of doing what is best for somebody who is elderly and needs attention. Your situation was different, and perhaps there are a few facilities that are rungs above the rest, but the majority of care facilities are much more neglectful and abusive than if the person was in a loving home with his/her own family.
It's not really off the thread topic because with the COVID 19 scare, I'm even more glad we didn't put our parents in long term care facilities. With me and my sister, it's not so much about money as it is the quality of care. Again, we all have to do what we think is best in the given circumstances.
They covered the fact that a huge swath of your “essential” workforce doesn’t get paid jack - it’s not rocket science to extrapolate that they need public transportation to get to work.
Shutting the subway down means that you don’t have low-paid cashiers to sell you groceries and to make your take out food. The people wiping butts at the nursing home drive hoopties in the best circumstances, and use public transport in areas where it’s available.
As for stuffing covid patients back into nursing homes, I suspect you’ll see eventually that didn’t actually occur very often. Nursing home residents weren’t getting tested for covid until very recently- the past few weeks. Before that, the only ones getting sent to hospitals were already half-dead, too far gone to save and ship back in any quantity.
The issue was testing- finding out who had it and separating them from other residents before it spread like wildfire.
The mass transit in NY is a disastrous situation and should never have been allowed to devolve to the point where it killed so many employees (123 by my last count with a $500k settlement per death, a cost to a state hemorrhaging cash) and residents. While so many other cities and states were told how important it is to shelter in place and stay home, NY kept these things running, killing people. You and I will not agree on what woulda/coulda/shoulda been done so I'll drop it.
The nursing homes though did occur and it wasn't just a few weeks ago and it wasn't just in NY. Cuomo signed his order 2 months ago and only rescinded it on May 10. His order shouldn't have lasted a week but it existed for 6. Crazy!
I'm going to take a stab and say it was because he was pressured by NY's largest healthcare provider and employer; Northwell Health (Wiki) partly because of guys like this: Michael Dowling "who served in New York State government for 12 years, including seven years as state director of Health, Education and Human Services and deputy secretary to former governor Mario Cuomo." But that's just a guess on my part to assume that a guy like that would have so much political influence.
I'll also assume that Governor Ducey has been similarly lobbied but like I said he's fighting to keep things secret.
Here is how I roll it all up. As a country, we aren't as smart as we think we are. My perception is the most bullish people who were out partying hard this weekend seem to fall into a particular political persuasion. They think the USA is the smartest bunch of them all, have the best healthcare, are lead by the smartest orange person out there, etc. Well, we are 4.25% of the world's population yet we have close to 25% of the world's COVID deaths.... And climbing.
I am in your camp. After we learned a lot while we were rightly over-cautious, we should have opened things up a while ago and used common sense distancing/masks in order to mitigate risk. But with 1/2 of the political culture roaming the streets, I suspect that it would have been impossible to manage. A certain portion of people buys into the pseudo-science. They can not GRASP the power of the placebo effect, they are suspicious enough to believe anything when it fits their narrative, etc.
IMO, the "seed spreader" known as subways should have been shut down long ago. I hope the NY city leaders are smart enough to figure out how to get essential workers back and forth to work outside of mass transit. Though I think the majority of the virus was spread to the masses when the city leaders were in complete denial. The leaders were working hard to convince people to go out. While hindsight is always 20-20, what a massive mistake. These are the same "leaders" that put infected people into nursing homes. While I am not a conspiracy nut, dead people don't vote when they die. And as a bonus, your economic liability goes way down. i.e., they were disposable as "they did their best". Not!
This is why I think Cuomo's press conference was pointing fingers at the federal CDC regulations on Friday. It's also my thought why he was "coming clean" on supposedly a lot of people were in the "probable" COVID camp. Because if you didn't test the person you knew damn well (probably) had COVID, now you can make it a legal fight as to why you shouldn't have to pay out when the dead family has a lawsuit. i.e., you have political and legal cover. It's how he is trying to wiggle out of it... All the while literally blaming Trump by name for such an idiotic move? Huh? He insulted people's intelligence....
This is where I get pissed at the media. They seem so afraid to push him.
Location: The Circle City. Sometimes NE of Bagdad.
24,512 posts, read 26,056,201 times
Reputation: 59917
Quote:
Originally Posted by autism360
But it’s not just Trump and Dr. Zelenko. An international poll of over 6,000 doctors revealed that hydroxychloroquine was the most highly rated treatment for Covid-19.
Who am I to disagree with 6000 doctors from around the world?
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.
Are you sttill confused? I'm saying you are inconsistent.
They think the USA is the smartest bunch of them all, have the best healthcare, are lead by the smartest orange person out there, etc. Well, we are 4.25% of the world's population yet we have close to 25% of the world's COVID deaths.... And climbing. 
i.e., they were disposable as "they did their best". Not! 
