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.
There seems to be an underlying assumption here that taxpayers should foot the bill for the elderly grandmother's care, in order that her family can inherit the house and valuable possessions.
My mother spent the last 18 months of her life in a lovely Assisted Living Center. She was pleased with it and we were also. Her work pension, SS check, and a LTC insurance policy, combined, covered all costs - approx $4100 a month for her studio apartment, meals, nursing care, etc.
If she had not had these resources, we (mom, my siblings, and I) would have sold her house, used that money to pay for her care, and been thankful to have had that resource.
My husband's cousins sold their parents' house, when the parents had to go into Assisted Living and their pensions fell short of covering the cost. They've remarked many times about how well it worked out financially.
I don't agree with the notion that taxpayers' should foot the bills for parents' care just so their beneficiaries can inherit the house. And "hide the valuables" seems ethically shady.
I'm not against taxpayer-supported elder care; in fact I'd happily pay more tax if the money would go for that. In other words, I'm what most people call a socialist-liberal in that respect.
But that's not the system we have, it's not the law of the land, and I'm dismayed when I hear/read people trying to work things so the government will pay for their loved elderly one's care even when the elderly have substantial assets and can therefore afford to pay at least some of the costs.
There seems to be an underlying assumption here that taxpayers should foot the bill for the elderly grandmother's care, in order that her family can inherit the house and valuable possessions.
My mother spent the last 18 months of her life in a lovely Assisted Living Center. She was pleased with it and we were also. Her work pension, SS check, and a LTC insurance policy, combined, covered all costs - approx $4100 a month for her studio apartment, meals, nursing care, etc.
If she had not had these resources, we (mom, my siblings, and I) would have sold her house, used that money to pay for her care, and been thankful to have had that resource.
My husband's cousins sold their parents' house, when the parents had to go into Assisted Living and their pensions fell short of covering the cost. They've remarked many times about how well it worked out financially.
I don't agree with the notion that taxpayers' should foot the bills for parents' care just so their beneficiaries can inherit the house. And "hide the valuables" seems ethically shady.
I'm not against taxpayer-supported elder care; in fact I'd happily pay more tax if the money would go for that. In other words, I'm what most people call a socialist-liberal in that respect.
But that's not the system we have, it's not the law of the land, and I'm dismayed when I hear/read people trying to work things so the government will pay for their loved elderly one's care even when the elderly have substantial assets and can therefore afford to pay at least some of the costs.
If her house could be sold to pay for the added expenses then this would not be an issue. Perhaps you are not familiar with the housing crisis (especially FL). My grandparents built and paid for their home. She did not take out ANY equity loans during the bubble, but now her home is worthless because of the current economic situation. I have a problem with our government taking advantage by forcing the sale of my grandmother's home because she needs nursing home care. My grandmother has worked her entire life. My grandfather did also, when he wasn't serving our country to ensure that your family has their freedom.
And how about the more than 70 years she paid FICA? She paid into it and she deserves any and all benefits of it.
Who paid 70 years into FICA and what does that have to do with this thread?? FICA is social security and medicare - it's not a needs-based program, it's more like insurance - if you pay into it for awhile (at least 10 quarters) then you and/or your dependents will get benefits, regardless of assets.
FICA has not been discussed in this thread but Medicaid has. Medicaid is needs-based and has nothing to do with FICA.
My grandparents built and paid for their home. She did not take out ANY equity loans during the bubble, but now her home is worthless because of the current economic situation. I have a problem with our government taking advantage by forcing the sale of my grandmother's home because she needs nursing home care. My grandmother has worked her entire life. My grandfather did also, when he wasn't serving our country to ensure that your family has their freedom.
I don't understand what you mean by the "government taking advantage". Your grandmother needs care; she has a house that she likely will never need again. How is she being hurt, financially, if you sell the house? She needs care, her family needs money to pay for it, she has a house to sell.... it makes sense to me that you sell the house, even if you don't get as much money as you'd like or you think your entitled to.
My mom worked hard for her home too. (edit to add: she worked minimum wage jobs for more than 50 years). She and my stepdad built it themselves, brick-by-brick, using paid sub-contractors only when they had to.
We began the process of selling the house, at her request, before she died. That was in January 2009 right at the worst, where I live, of the housing plunge. For that reason, we sold it for 30+% less than the assessed value. Still, we felt blessed because Mom owned it free and clear. After closing costs, etc, we ended up with 102k in our pockets. In a "normal" market we would have had 130k-140k.
If mom had not had pensions and insurance to cover her medical needs, we would have used that money to pay for her care and would have considered ourselves lucky to have it. We wouldn't have dreamed of trying to use Medicaid (taxpayers money), when we had a way to pay.
So many people have nothing, that's what's sad. They have no choice but to go on Medicaid.
Originally Posted by biscuitmom
Who paid 70 years into FICA and what does that have to do with this thread??
You opened the door for this to be entered into this thread by your statement:
Quote:
taxpayers should foot the bill for the elderly grandmother's care
She was a taxpayer who paid into the system directly or indirectly by paying numerous taxes for over 70 years. So again she deserves any and all benefits of it.
I don't understand what you mean by the "government taking advantage". Your grandmother needs care; she has a house that she likely will never need again. How is she being hurt, financially, if you sell the house? She needs care, her family needs money to pay for it, she has a house to sell.... it makes sense to me that you sell the house, even if you don't get as much money as you'd like or you think your entitled to.
If we sell her house now she will be lucky to get $40,000 for it. She has paid into the system for decades, so forcing her to sell at such a tremendous loss to afford a few months of care is unfair. I'm happy that you were able to get so much from your mom's house to afford her care. I guess we'll agree to disagree!
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.
