Posted on 10/23/2006 10:24:56 AM PDT by SmithL
"The assets were not those of the relatives. The offspring lived in the home, but it was still owned by Dad."
_____________________________
That's what I thought was conveniently vague in the article. The smart thing would have been to buy the property, put the money from the transaction in the father's account and pay the costs out of that.
I'm familiar with long term care insurance because my husband, sister and b-i-l, and parents have it. You have to be relatively healthy, but certain conditions will disqualify you (or force you to buy a policy from a company that is for a higher-risk group and more costly). One example of a condition that will put you in a higher risk group is diabetes, or having had a heart attack. You can get it, though, if you have conditions like high blood pressure or high cholesterol. Generally, the younger and healthier you are, the lower your premiums will be.
The best insurance that my relatives found, by far, was from GE Financial -- they have been in the business longer than any other company. I think that division goes by a different name now -- Genworth, or something like that? My parents shopped around a lot and even talked to assisted living facility managers to get their opinion.
Shopping policies from multiple companies is like comparing apples and oranges -- they all have different features. What you want is a premium that stays flat for the rest of your life and covers you for a minimum amount per day (that amount depends on what nursing home costs are where you live) with an automatic coverage increase of the daily benefit of 3% or so every year to cover cost of living increases.
To give you an idea, my sister is 49 years old and bought a policy 2 years ago. Her policy is between $1300 and $1400 per year -- she is healthy, overweight but not obese, so her risk is lower and her premium reflects that. Her yearly premium will never increase. Should she need it, she will get what started out as up to $150 per day, but that payout increases every year by 3% (so if she were to need it today, here daily payment, 2 years later, is now up to $159.13). It will cover in-home care if she prefers. (Imagine that -- being able to stay in your own home). If she gets ill and her long term care coverage kicks in, then the yearly premium ($1300) is waived while the coverage is in effect -- indefinitely. The policy will cover he for as long as she needs it. You can get variations, such as only 2 years instead of unlimited, and the cost is less. The older you are when you buy the insurance, the more your yearly premium will be.
Long term care insurance is something to be seriously considered if you have assets to protect (unless you are very wealthy, and you've got enough money to bear that risk). Without protection, long term care costs can drastically draw down someone's assets. Personally, I would rather be covered and not see everything that I've saved go towards a nursing home. I want to give it to whomever or whatever I choose.
If you take my sister's cost for 37 years (until she's 85), that $1300 per year amounts to $48,100 -- except there's no telling what one year in a nursing home will cost 37 years from now. That's about the cost of one year in a decent nursing home. (It's much higher in some localities, and lower at the poorly run facilities but you DON"T want to end up at one of those). Hopefully we all croak in our sleep when were old but still relatively healthy and don't ever have to deal with these issues, but we don't get any control over that!
I hear ya on the illegals, but two wrongs don't make a right. In this case, the taxpayers of TN are shelling out a lot of money to care for people who have salable assets. It's only right that those assets should be sold FIRST before the taxpayers are made to ante up.
Thanks for the info! I guess the bottom line is one should get it when they are younger. I'll tell you tho, I wonder what nursing home care will even be like in 30 years!
Hopefully none of us will need it (my Mom died in 2000 and my Dad was able to care for her at home while she was ill) and my inlaws both died this January, and my FIL had been able to take care of my MIL at home (she had alzheimers and was bedridden for about 6 years). Neither had nursing home care.
My Dad is in his 80s, but should he need care he will likely come live with my brother or I, hopefully he will not end up with something that cannot be cared for at home (I realize there are those conditions--however, I think alot of people could be cared for by family but are not for one reason or another).
susie
"It should be a means tested benefit with no free lookback period."
I absolutely agree. Before the state kicks in one penny, people should have to spend all their assets on their care--no transferring stuff to the kids just under the wire to avoid it being sold. If that means the grown children get nothing, so be it. It's grotesque to try to save your elderly parents' assets so you get some sort of inheritance by sticking the taxpayers with their bills. It's the parents' money to be used for their care.
The adult children in this article should be ashamed. Some peoples' sense of entitlement amazes me.
Let me ask you. If I owe you money, but I conveniently transfer my assets to someone else and then die, is that ok with you?
susie
I can tell you that in the state I'm in (Texas), once a person is indigent (down to just a couple of thousand dollars in assets, but that doesn't count their house), then they qualify to go on Medicaide, which is what pays for indigent nursing home care. Medicaide (the State, or you and I, the taxpayers) only reimburses a nursing home about $90 per day for basic care, so that is all that Medicaid can come after when a person dies -- only if a home exists to "go after," since the patient has already established that they are indigent.
It isn't an "inflated amount," if anything it is minimal. Two patients, side by side in a nursing home will get the same care. The facility will get $90 per day from the state for the indigent patient, but the person that still has assets has to pay the private patient rate -- which in my f-i-l's case was $147/day at the facility where he stayed after he broke his hip and his regular insurance dropped off. Luckily we were able to get him out of there -- the place was terrible.
The "inflated" amounts that you are talking about are witih hospital care, and that is covered by Medicare for all persons over 65, not Medicaide for indigent patients that need nursing home care.
Some people give their money/estate to their children before they die so that the state can't touch it. That is not fair to all the working folks who play honest.
How we as a culture treat our parents and grandparents is a crime.
If you reread the posts you will find that I simply said that "inflated costs" were not the issue of this article. I was pointing that out to a poster who impied that it was the issue.
"Inflated costs" have nothing whatsoever to do with this article and that is all I was pointing out.
I was neither agreeing or disagreeing with her about costs.
I have only been to two different ones and they were excellent. I'm sure the type you describe exist but I haven't seen them.
You mean the government can confiscate and sell your home to pay for it?
The state pays these hellholes, within people wishing to die, feces and the stench of rotting flesh.
The homes get their money with little oversight. Then the state demands repayment even though the victims of this horrid system payed into it with their taxes all their working life.
We could easily ask that question about all law. The alternative is no law at all. I think this is quite fair. I'm not willing to have no law on the chance it might be taken too far. I would rather cross that bridge as it arises.
susie
Oh honey, I notice in spades.
Right now my frail, elderly, WWII vet father is dying in the room next to me.
I spend my days looking after his needs and trying to make him as comfortable as possible in the time he has left.
It's the hardest thing I've ever done and I wouldn't give up a moment of it.
The family could have helped pay the NH bill along with the parents SS check. But they did not want to do that. They could have mortaged the house and used to money and made house payments. People need to plan for these things. I bet the Son that got the home did not pay a dime to the NH for his parents care. I do understand the anguish however but most people think they will just get their neighbor to pay (taxes)and they will not have to.
If you want the home talk to a lawyer now. I think if you take legal possession 3 years before they enter a NH they can not take the home. That is how it is in Arkansas. But you have to own the house legally. Your parents of coarse can still live there.
If you take the government's money, you take the government's rules and regulations.
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.