Posted on 10/23/2006 10:24:56 AM PDT by SmithL
I personally think that if a person has assets to pay for his/her own care, then they should pay. Why should a person with a 500K house and a million bucks that was all transferred at the opportune time be entitled to Medicaide? They shouldn't. It should be a means tested benefit with no free lookback period.
bump
I sold my mom's house for her medical care. I don't think the taxpayers should have to pay for her if she has assets.
I think the family home should be exempt from any equation.
There is every reason for society to keep property in the family and keep the family "off the street."
All this does is lead to estate planning where the home is pre-planing quick claimed over to the family.
I happen to be a LTC insurance specalists. If freepers have detailed questions about how these policies work or how to find a good reputable specialist in your area, just let me know.
Proudpapa
>>>I happen to be a LTC insurance specalists. If freepers have detailed questions about how these policies work or how to find a good reputable specialist in your area, just let me know. >>>
I work in Commercial Insurance, but am aware of LTC. I wish I could have talked my father into purchasing it a while back, but he was stubborn and saw many other things the money could have been spent on. Now he is paying $2200 a month for Assisted Living. He's wishing he listened
So you sold your house so those without a house and who are here illegally would benefit from your mother's lifetime of work.
>>>I may be in the minority here but I see nothing wrong with the state trying to recover some of the care costs of patients. It's taking nothing from the patients, only their heirs and at that, only money that's owed to the state.
I agree, as long as there are no minors.
Sounds like he's getting off easy. Around here (Washington State)care costs $3-7,000 per month.
In the vast majority of cases you are talking about adult children who are self-supporting. How is keeping property "in the family" a benefit to society when society has to take the hit when the bills come due?
My neighbor's children make more money, yearly, than everyone in my neighborhood (except the medical resident who is married to a medical resident). Why should these adults get the benefit of a $200,000 house while the rest of us, with far fewer assests of our own, pay their mother's bills?
The specific instance I am thinking of and mentioned is the family home where the family actually uses the house for the family. (the son or daughter who moves in and did take care of mom or dad or both)
I don't think this is really an issue for envy politics.
There is no reason the successful should be more penalized that those who are not. It is the government's way of making everyone the same level of destitute.
I think an adult child who has forgone income to care for the parents is a special case. There are ways to safeguard the home if that is necessary.
There is no reason the successful should be more penalized that those who are not. It is the government's way of making everyone the same level of destitute.
I think people should pay their bills. That some people do not, does not relieve me of my obligation. This is the freeloaders way of stealing from me to enrich their own pockets.
Yeah, I don't really understand how they got the $280,000 of free medical care in the first place without having to sign something over.
I am suffering now because I wouldn't sign over my last assets to get some help with some serious medical problems. If I had done so, I would be living on the street.
I am just SOL on everything I thought I would have been covered for or qualified for after working more than 30 years and paying taxes. I hoped and expected to keep on working another 30 years, but now it's not possible.
You're not alone. Asset dumping in preparation of extended care for an elderly parent is a pervasive problem with Medicare, Medicaid, and I guess even Tenn Care. It is selfish and defeats the purpose of the program --- to care for people who CANNOT care for themselves. The rules for asset dumping are known, and those who don't even take time to read the rules, think of what's gonna happen to their parents deserve to be left out in the cold, so to speak. All their selfishness does is dump the burden of caring for their parents off on the rest of us...
They may have 'played by the rules' but they sure didn't live by them. For gosh sakes, these rules for long term care aren't secret....they just didn't think ahead far enough. And, I"m sorry if that sounds harsh, but where does it say that someone's lack of preparation becomes OUR problem?
Hell, you ought to see how aggressive they are in the UK and we have 'free' medical care here. Hahaha!
"The family can't have their possessions grabbed by the state, but I don't see any problem in using the ill person's assets to pay the tab."
________________________________
The thing that caught my eye was the state looking at family members if the transfers didn't go through probate. I'm all for the ill person's assets paying the bills, but it seems that if the ill person's estate wasn't transferred just right the sales may be negated and the assets seized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.