Follow
Share
Read More
This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.
3 4 5 6 7
Today I read an article in Yahoo Finance that claimed retired people weren't spending enough money, saying that they are "depriving" themselves of the enjoyment they've earned, and also that they're "being selfish" by not putting it "back into the economy". (Of course everyone should realize that any money that's not stuffed into a mattress but is in bank accounts, investment accounts, stocks, bonds, etc. IS a part of the economy, but that's another issue.) It concluded that many older people are "falsely" worried about outliving their money so they spend it conservatively. Perhaps the writer hadn't priced AL or NH, and almost certainly hadn't read the comments on this forum posted by people who had LT care insurance that, because of some "technicality", refused to pay when the time came.
Helpful Answer (6)
Report

Satisfy my curiosity, please.

Supposing you are strolling down a street somewhere in America, minding your own business, and a car veers out of control and runs you over, splat, and you happen not to have any ID on you and you're clean unconscious and pretty mangled. So presumably the ambulance forms up, you are scraped off the pavement, taken to hospital and put back together.

Then the bill is presented, and the car driver's insurer pays; or your travel insurer pays; or you pay if you have the funds - but what if you haven't, and you're not insured, and the car driver can't be traced?

Or, what if it's an orphan child this happens to?

Do hospitals insure themselves against defaulting patients?
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

Countrymouse, here across the pond we, the paying patients, are footing the bills for those who are unable to pay or have no health insurance. Anyone can get free care at a hospital, this law was put into place by our former President Ronald Reagan decades ago.

I can understand the concept and am grateful that such a law exist for those who are actually living in poverty. It's the patients that feel the government owes them the care, who if you went to their house have newest and brightest items, brand new car, cable TV, iPhones, etc. That is what is wrong with this picture.
Helpful Answer (4)
Report

In addition to what jacobsonbob was saying, retirees aren't spending a whole lot of money because they're probably trying to make sure they don't run out of it and retirees want to make sure they have enough money to carry them through the rest of their lives so they can leave an inheritance to their heirs and I don't blame them. Retirees aren't being selfish for not putting money back into the economy because the people need that money far more than the government does. Another thing to consider is that some retirees don't really have a very big retirement, you're only paid based on what's available to you at retirement. Social Security doesn't really pay much, it's up to you to have a backup savings plan. Sometimes people just don't have enough to really splurge whereas others do. Let's say you have a life flight nurse and a general laborer. You know the life flight nurse is obviously going to make far more than any general laborer out there, which also makes them easy targets for future predatory guardianship abuse. A flight nurse's income is a huge difference than just someone into general labor. Therefore, there are some people who can afford to splurge and others must be far more conservative to make sure their money lasts the rest of their lives. The last thing you want is to be scraping by and not be able to have enough money to survive should you run out because you can't get more unless you're doing something part time on the side to make more money. You also want to be very careful about stuffing money into a mattress, I heard a sad story where someone lost a few million dollars doing this when their children surprised them with a new mattress and the old one went to the dump. It wasn't until later the mother came clean and told about the hidden stash inside the mattress that was already taken to the dump. This was on the news but I don't know if the mattress was ever recovered with the money. It's not wise to stuff money in your mattress because you never know what will happen, so let this woman's very sad story be an expensive lesson learned.

As for having some types of insurance coverage that won't pay out when it's needed, that was covered in some of the YouTube videos under elder financial abuse, exploitation and predatory guardianship abuse. Somewhere along the line this was mentioned so I'm not a bit surprised by the Yahoo article jacobsonbob found. Retirees actually have every reason to be very concerned, especially with the information showing up on the World Wide Web we know as the Internet. The information is out there for the finding, we just need to find it and really wise up to what's going on that most people don't even know about. It sounds like someone may be just trying to throw people off guard through some of these articles and i'm not one of those kinds of people who will let down my guard now that I know what's really going on behind the publics backs and right under our noses. Abusive guardianship is a real white-collar crime that goes unpunished because abusive guardians are never held liable as evidence is destroyed in cases where after the last dollar, the patient conveniently dies and the elder's body is cremated to destroy evidence, all without the family knowing until later. and it's time the public start fighting back and bringing stuff like this to a screeching halt. I don't blame retirees for being ridiculously worried about running out of money and trying to put things in place to protect themselves because as you get older, you tend to become more vulnerable but not in all cases. I had someone who was like a grandpa to me and he was real sharp right to the end and even ran his own 16 acre farm in a neighboring town. Yes, he even had his own horses and we even went trail riding one day. We used to ride on the 16 acre farm and he did pretty much all the chores, and even maintained his own garden in his 70s or 80s. I love my pappy to this day even though he's gone. He was one of the few World War II vets even left and he was definitely wise for his age. Yes, he probably had some money tucked away and I don't blame him for saving his money and providing for his own needs. He was responsible enough to make sure he had enough money to last the rest of his life after retiring from a nearby steel mill he worked at for a number of years. He made a good retirement in order to have the horse farm, and he knew how to stay healthy. We can all learn quite a bit from our elders whether or not it fits our unique situations. Knowledge is power and our elders are our teachers. What they teach may not fit our unique situations right now, but someday you never know when you may end up needing that information. Yes, it's very wise to save now while you can because even a small savings can be built up with time
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

Countrymouse,

First, anytime you get behind the wheel, you're required to have your drivers license, registration and proof of insurance with you. Lacking any of these can get you a hefty fine and possibly your car impounded if the cop really wanted to confiscate your car. If a car is impounded, it's up to the owner to prove they have a valid drivers license, proof of insurance, and the registration proving rightful ownership.

If you get behind the wheel of a car and have no insurance on your car, your car can be confiscated if you're involved in an accident. Not only can your car because if it's gated but you can also be slapped with a very heavy fines and maybe even some jail time. You can get in very serious trouble for not having insurance on your car before putting it on the road. I know Ohio is very strict about that for starters, they are very serious about drivers having required documents before even getting behind the wheel.

Now, let's say you're involved in an accident and you have your license, registration and proof of insurance but no health insurance. The bill will go to you once they find out who you are because all they have to do is run your plate during the investigation and find the car is registered to you. If you were at fault, you'll definitely be paying out of your own pocket for any damages you caused.

Now, let's say you're not at fault. There'll still be an investigation but the only difference is the other driver will be liable. Now, let's say the other driver doesn't have any insurance or maybe even not enough of it. Now it rolls over to your insurance company and your premiums may increase (unless you have accident forgiveness). With Allstate, I recall when I had three bikes on the road and every so often my money order would be returned and I would get a break of about three or four months. I don't know how they run things now, it's been years since I was with Allstate. However, I hear you where you mention a car veering out of control. Our town just had an incident where a car went left of center on one of our main highways and crashed head-on into an oncoming car going in the right direction. There was also another situation where there was a demented elderly person who got pulled over for going the wrong way on one of our interstates. I don't know how she ended up on the other side going the wrong way on I 71, but she did because I heard about it. She could've easily gotten in a head on collision on 71 and she could've killed not only herself but someone else. Needless to say, her license was permanently revoked and she's no longer allowed to drive but she may still have the car. It was said she won't let the car go, but at some time someone is going to have to take it from her because she can no longer drive it. I don't know what her family is going to do or how they will handle this, but you do have a very strong point on cars getting into accidents with unsuspecting victims. Our area has seemingly more accidents during summer and we just had a life flight pick up someone late last night. You can just about bet the patient was probably in some kind of car wreck, we have a lot of them through the summer but most of them seem to be out of town oddly enough from what I've noticed. Wherever there is high speed, there is more of a risk for accidents especially when 71 is now 70 mph, whereas it was 65 before. I think it should be dropped weight around to 50 mph and left there because lower speeds mean fewer accidents. Another thing to consider is higher speeds means your car becomes lighter on the road because the air passes underneath the car, lifting up the car a bit, making the car even easier to maneuver. Power steering is called "power" steering for a reason, because high-speed's make power steering even easier. If you don't believe me, take a new modern car and go out on the interstate for a spin. Now, tap on the break and pay close attention to the suspension as the car slightly lowers back toward the ground. See what I mean? I've driven enough that I notice this, cars have a suspension system for a reason, it serves a specific purpose through its function. It not only makes the ride easier, but it's also involved in weight adjustment on the tires as you're going down the road at a higher speed and your car gradually lifts up with the air passing not only around but also under your car. The force of that wind actually does lift up your car a bit as you're going down the interstate. This is what makes higher speeds and accidents so dangerous, so I hear you! Remember, my dad worked his whole life for Ford and we have no dummies in the family.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

Countrymouse I think the hospitals write those costs off every year. That's why insurance premiums go up for the rest of us; to compensate for their loss of revenue in those cases. 
Probably why hospitals don't keep you in there long either so they can turn over the bed to a paying consumer. And of course hospitals prefer commercial insurance (in the US that is any other insurance besides Medicare & Medicaid as they are allowed to charge more since Federal & State reimbursement rates are much lower.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

Many interesting comments above, but for me it it's just not that complicated. Many of the people using the "5-yr look back" strategy to divest their assets undoubtedly spent their lives looking down on people "on welfare." As they spend the inheritance, their children probably still do. Bizarre. Grandma and grandpa worked hard all their lives so that they could end up on welfare and enable their children to be "welfare cheats?" I've always thought that that's what my savings were for. My children are welcome to whatever is left after I've paid my own way, thank you very much.
Helpful Answer (3)
Report

You are subsidizing everyone else on Medicaid. Your bed is artifically much higher in a Medicaid facility than a private pay facility. In a private pay facility, everyone pays their fair share, so the beds are less expensive. In medicaid facilities, while some people get a subsidized room, you spend your savings paying for their free ride. It's socialism. Once you are broke, you too will be on welfare. The only difference is, you spent all your money to get broke, while the bed next to you is staying for nothing. How is that fair?
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

Well, Havefaith, I hope you are out there voting pro-Union and for higher wages and that you are able to invest in companies who offer good retirement packages and health plans and support responsible business practices. I would hate to think your investments and lifestyle are being subsidized by people who aren't getting paid their fair share. And I hope you don't vote to protect irresponsible business practices and that you aren't a climate denier, because if you do/are, then there's a really good chance my tax dollars are having to subsidize your recklessness when we have to pay for disaster cleanup as a result of climate change and pollution. And I certainly hope you are not one of those people who shot our country in the foot by voting for fools who want to bankrupt working families and Boomers by mucking around with their health plans.

May I just ask how you know that it's Medicaid patients -- and not NH CEOs -- who are driving up the cost of nursing home care? I'm asking because my grandpa was in a Medicaid bed and the place was terribly understaffed and the aides got paid about $10/hr (many worked two jobs) and yet the company that owns the place is enormously successful. BTW, my grandpa was a WWII vet, worked the same job his whole life till he retired at 65, then started working again till he was 80, and went on Medicaid when he was 96. He paid into the system and like most families, applying for Medicaid was a last resort.

Is your screen name is ironic? If not, you might need to do a read through of your scripture. Nowhere does it mention or criticize socialism, but it does have an awful lot to say about how we should treat the poor and infirm.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

Income taxes came into being in 1913. Income taxes are a recent development as is Medicaid (1965). Also, where do you think all the money goes for climate protection? Into the pockets of the billionaires who ride around in expensive jets. They are laughing all the way to the bank. What you are saying is that middleclass people have to pay their own way AND they also have to pay for poor people. So the logical solution would be to stay poor and get everything free. That's what happens in socialism. There is little incentive to work, since there is no benefit for achievement.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

Yes, exactly: middle and upper class people should have to be pay for poor people.

It would be better if middle and upper class people refused to invest in companies who do not pay their workers fairly, and offer affordable insurance packages so they don't need Medicaid. It would be better if we demanded that CEOs and business owners who cheat people and break the law were held accountable to the same rules and laws as everyone else. It might be better if we shifted away from "for profit" medicine -- at least where primary care and chronic conditions are concerned -- and had a system where everyone paid in and everyone had the same access to at least a minimum standard of care. That is a socialist practice and one that most modern societies embrace. "Socialist" programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, a state-funded education system, taxpayer-funded police and emergency -- were enacted because there was a need for them.

Medicaid pays for medical care for poor people. It does not provide housing except for the frail elderly. Is there really a lifestyle incentive to be on Medicaid?

The dates you cite for the advent of Income Tax and Medicaid are accurate for the US, but people have been required to pay forms of taxes and/or tariffs since Ancient times (e.g. "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's.") The difference is that through centuries of philosophical, religious, and scientific examination, and hard work by spirited people, we reached a point in history where we could say as a society that we want our citizens to be housed, we don't want the ill to be suffering on the streets or in prison-like institutions, etc. There will always be poverty and misfortune, but in a just society we do our best to ensure that we are not the cause of it, and that we help each other.

The statistics I read said we spend about $450 billion (from both federal and state funds) a year on Medicaid. That is an incredible amount of money. They said it's split almost evenly between children, working poor, the disabled, and the elderly as numbers of enrollees, but with actual dollars spent tipping toward the elderly quite a bit. But people are living a lot longer than they expected. The dollar is not worth what it was 30 years ago when some of these people retired, and the cost of their care has increased as well. And as a point of reference, the uninsured losses after Katrina were estimated to be about $200 billion. That's for ONE natural disaster, and we are just talking about part of the damage.

What billionaires and climate money are you talking about? Do you remember when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire? Cleveland was a joke for decades after that. And it was at least part of what prompted the creation of the EPA. We don't talk about acid rain much anymore because of environmental regulations, the Clean Air Act, the development of alternative energy, etc. I don't know what "climate money" is going to which billionaires. But I have seen with my own eyes that when legislators choose to fund research and enact regulations limiting pollution, it makes a difference for all of our benefit. Otherwise we are all subsidizing clean-ups and treatment of health problems caused by pollution.
Helpful Answer (5)
Report

I agree that people should not expect an inheritance. If a parent needs long term care, the money that they have should go toward that care not somehow 'hidden' so the children can get it. My father wanted to give us (his children) some of his savings and we said no because it will be needed for his care. He is 93 and needs to use it for his care.  In addition, there are way too many people on medicaid.  I have a niece who is on it and can't figure out how in the world she got it.  She's "disabled"...I don't see it...she could really work.  I worked for 40 years and saved and bought long term care insurance..to take care of me...but seems like a lot of people are on the system that shouldn't be.
Helpful Answer (10)
Report

Medicare should be free to all. I take no issue with trying to save assets for the children. You are foolish not to, imo. If profits were taken out of health care, we wouldn't have to worry about it.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

Franklin, if profits were "taken out of health care,", how would hospitals, doctors, nurses and other medical people survive? Doctors, nurse practitioners, nurses and CNAs all have educational costs to expend to reach their professional goals.

Health care is a business. Why shouldn't it be allowed to earn profits like other businesses?

And if Medicare were "free to all", who would pay the costs? As it is, Medicare offers a lot for a nominal premium - a little over $100 per month for us. Who do you think would be willing to pay extra taxes to fund Medicare for everyone?

Just curious.
Helpful Answer (6)
Report

Not only is it imoral to try and shield assets from Medicaid it is also illegal.

I read the original post about famillies A and B.
It was an interesting story but was it in the best interests of family A to deny themselves so many luxuries? What kind of stress did it put on them emotionly.
I am not suggesting that everyone should spend everything they earn and I am a great advocate of living within one's meansand being very frugal.

I read an article in M****** E**** N*** About a family living off the grid. They of course did not believe in family Bs life style they felt there was enough enjoyment to be had living on the farm and enjoying the animals. Each child was encouraged to start their own business at about 10 years old and ranged from raising shep and chickens to selling the eggs and crafts. They were encouraged and supervised but allowed to make their own mistakes. By the time they were 20 the two elder ones had $20,000 each in the bank from their own endeavors. Now the grandchildren are following the same path. They never received an allowance and had to buy their own supplies from their profits.
We are fortunate to be old enough for Medicare which we have paid for handsomely through the years plus plus a PPO plan which picks up a lot of the rest. Even so we spend around $7,000 a year in additional cost especially for expensive drugs in the donut hole and premiums for the PPO currently $150 a month each. In 2015 I had a serious illness and my medical bills amounted to just under a million $s.
Would I qualify for medicaid for long term care? Not till I had spent between $24,000 to $84,000 a year which would not take very long.
I don't think either family behaved morally, they both took different paths and ended up in the same place long term care however it is financed
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

Just my opinion but in lot of cases [not the original cases mentioned by original poster] it wasn't hiding money but giving the heirs their share early so the elder can see the heirs enjoy the money. That makes sense. Bet no one in the family even heard anything about Medicaid.

Then the elder needs to move into a skilled facility.... oops, the elder already handed out much of the funds throughout those years and deeded over the house to an heir or two where the elder had continued to live. Good grief, these Assisted Living and Skilled nursing homes are expensive....

Now what? Ok, lets look into Medicaid. Then and only then do the grown children realize that Mom or Dad should have kept their money and kept the house to help pay for this care.

I know for myself, I never heard about Medicaid paying for skilled nursing homes until I came to this forum a few years ago. So I planned accordingly whenever my parents gifted me money, I never spent a dime, I could give it back for their care.

As for my parent's house, I was glad they didn't give it to me prior to passing. Quit Claim deeding it to me would have cost me mega bucks in Capital Gain Taxes if I sold it as the house would have been an "investment" and the rules are different compared to being my "residence". Plus my parent would have had to pay a Gift Tax by doing so as it would have been more than the annual $14,000 gift tax exemption.  Was so happy when my Dad sold the house while he was in Independent Living, the equity helped pay for his rent and his caregivers. 

How can we educate the public to help guide them on the ins and outs of the financial implications of elder care???
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

freqflyer, I am not sure if your information is correct. Not every parent who quit claims their home has to pay gift tax. I'll leave that to the attorneys out there. And yes, Garden Artist, taxes would go up if health care were free and equal for all. I would pay more taxes for this. I think taxes are a good thing and I (well, I wouldn't say 'happily') pay them in return for mail service, good roads, libraries, public schools and many other services. Government workers earn a fairly decent salary with benefits, as well they should. We don't use the library as we have Kindles, and we no longer have children in the public school system. Still, for the better good of my community, I want to support these things. My wife and I are paying nearly $10,000/year for health insurance - her employer pays the other half. That's $20,000/year that could be going into taxes for medicare for all. At one point, my wife's job offered long-term care insurance for their employees with one condition - both spouses had to take it. Not just one. I was denied this LTC insurance due to a pre-existing condition, therefore my wife could not get it - remember, it was either both spouses or not at all. My pre-existing condition is a liver disease that was transmitted from a patient of mine when I worked in health care. I couldn't sue because of the workman's comp laws. So I have been sick for over 20 years because I worked. And I have been denied LTC insurance, life insurance and if I had to get my own health policy, who knows what I would have had to pay. Knowing this for the last 20 years has forced us to save for the nearly inevitable LTC that one or both of us will need. I am 6'5" tall to my wife's 5'8" and I outweigh her X3. If I end up needing care, she's not going to be able to do it. I'm just saying that everyone's situation is unique and no one should sit in judgement. Life is hard enough. It just sucks that I have a pre-existing condition because I worked and that life is a crap shoot. None of us can be totally prepared for what might come. It's sad that the CNAs who care for us are making minimum wage and some business owner is getting rich off the sick, elderly and dying. I don't think health care should be a business, it should be a right. BTW, my two oldest daughters are doctors and my third is a nurse. Their student debt is enormous! Maybe if college were also a right and not so expensive, my third daughter and my son would have become doctor's too. We always say we want to encourage the best and the brightest, yet debt like that discourages a lot of people. So there is my rant for today. And yet, my father, who does have LTC insurance, refuses to use it! We are the sandwich generation. While I go to care for my father who refuses care, my wife is caring for our new grandchild!
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

This is where I got the information regarding Quit Claim deeds and gift taxes.

Google "gift-tax-implications-putting-children-quitclaim-deeds"
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

As to the tax question, the IRS will view the addition of the letter writer via quitclaim deed as a gift. Under the terms of the U.S. tax code, gift taxes are paid by the giver, so the brother would have to fill out a gift tax form 709, and he can apply the value of half the house to the lifetime maximum of $5.5 million he can give away under current estate tax rules. So if the lifetime gifts are under 5.5 million the way I understand it is no gift tax necessary. I got the above from your search.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

Here is another from your search: Gift Tax
If your son doesn't pay you for the property, you are giving him a gift. The IRS imposes a gift tax on practically any gift made during the tax year. There are some exclusions to this tax; however gifts to children are not included. Individuals are allowed up to $13,000 per year in nontaxable gifts, as of 2012. Married couples can claim $26,000. In regard to property, the fair market value is used to assess the value of the gift. At tax return time, you will need to fill out a gift tax return using Form 709.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

Now that the able act has been enacted into law, I don't think it's him a while to hide assets as long as their basic needs assets such as one home the recipient actually lives in and one car exempt bylaw for medical transport. I also don't think it's immoral to hide money even before the able act because with Medicaid they only allowed you $1500 which is not enough to get a decent car. Social Security actually allowed you $2000, also not enough to get a decent modern car since cars are far more expensive than that little bit of money can afford before even getting it on the road after paying tax and title, insurance, plates, etc. after buying the car itself, so no, sometimes you must hide money even without an able account. Why? Because the way things are set up it prevents certain groups of people from ever getting a head and even having a better life experience which also includes a decent modern car. Thank God for the able act, we can legally have far more money than we used to be able to simply because someone somewhere saw the needs of people on public benefits who weren't allowed to have a whole lot of money especially where big ticket items were needed. As long as you have have an able account, Now you can make much bigger contributions into it with a much higher cap, giving recipients a much better life experience because it's no fun to have to live like a prisoner because you're not allowed to have much money and that's not right. In fact, putting a limit on peoples lives actually causes more undue hardship and is actually a waste of an actual human life when they're not allowed to enjoy life like everyone else just because they're disabled enough to need public benefits. The way things were set up before the able act, you may as well call it a very clever type of discrimination. Now that the able act has become law, you can have a much higher amount of money and thank God for opening the eyes of however many people who really needed to see the needs of the poor. I'm sure God was pretty angry at how many peoples lives we're going to waste because of how everything is set up that requires money. If you don't have the money, you can't have this, participate in that which was leaving people on the sidelines when maybe in some cases God may have intended certain people to have this or participate in that (according to the purpose of their calling). God may have actually wanted to use specific things in the lives of poor people for the purpose of those things being used for work that God may have planned for that person and maybe having the money for a car may have been part of the plan to maybe go do some traveling and minister to someone farther away from home. However, if God plans for someone to have a car and let's say you're the only available one who could possibly minister to someone about to commit suicide, God's going to have to get you to that person one way or another because you might be the only key to saving their lives and a car in the hands of the person he wants to send may mean life or death for someone wanting to commit suicide. In fact, I heard of a story one time where someone had just a little bit of gas in the tank and very little money. God sent that particular person about 20 miles from home and lead him to a guy working with a tractor in the field who was about to end it all. Had it not been for that car at that time, the person working in the field might not have been dead, and it was God sending someone by car and leading them to this particular person. I use this story as an example because sometimes God may want to send someone by car somewhere to save a life but without the tools to do what God may be wanting you to do, it can cost someone else their life. This example is exactly why I'm thankful for the able act because you never know when God may want you to get a car and go somewhere and possibly save a life. You can't possibly do the work God has for you without the tools needed to do it, specifically if he may be wanting you to go somewhere and minister to someone but you can't get someone to take you and having a car is the only way to get there when someone else's life may actually depend on you arriving just in time. This story is exactly why I'm thankful for the able act because people with disabilities have lived wasted lives for too long and most likely too many peoples lives have been lost because the right people have been unable to help due to lack of resources because some of the people God may have been wanting to send our most likely the poor among us. Remember, God doesn't call the qualified, he qualifies the called, and some of those who are called maybe the least likely and the least unexpected among us. Yes, I'm very glad for the able act that allows us to legally put money away in able accounts and not say anything. To some legitimately reasonable degree, no, I really don't think it's immoral to hide assets from Medicaid for legitimate reasons. If you live in your home then one home is legally exempt as well as one car for medical transport and you never know when you may be sent by God to use that car to help someone else with medical transport and maybe even save their lives by helping them get to a doctor and the dr. happens to catch a life threatening condition and the difference between you providing transportation and not to providing it can mean the difference between life and death for not just you, but someone else
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

Too many people are ripping off the system! I've heard of families worth millions who get their well off parents into nursing homes that are paid by Medicaid. It is downright immoral, and unethical!
Helpful Answer (4)
Report

When my mom was diagnosed with Pick's Disease my step-father tried to hide his assets by transferring everything to his son. About a year later my step-father was killed in a auto accident and my mom ended up penniless in a Medicaid facility. I will never forget walking into my mom's room and finding her tied to a chair with a rope! No one will ever convince me that people on Medicaid get the same good care as someone paying for their care. My family went to court to contest what my step-father had done with his money. We won the case and my mom finally got the money to pay for decent care in a wonderful facility.
Helpful Answer (7)
Report

I am in my late 50s my wife is in her early 50's. Almost a year and a half ago, we decided to do some estate planning. We decided because she was much younger than me to put all of our assets in to a trust in her name. After that was complete I was diagnosed with Early onset ALZ. When I was 40, I tried to buy LTC but my insurance agent refused to sell it to me saying I was too young. We'd been married three yrs and had our first two children, we were busy but happily raising our family. This is where I made the biggest mistake of my life, I should have gone over the agents head and demanded my LTC company sell me a policy, I was in good health and could afford the insurance. Three years later the lazy ins agent retired and I asked my new agent about LTC. During underwriting I was diagnosed with a form of Muscular Dystrophy. Automatically disqualified from LTC. Go forward 15 years, ALZ and no LTC. We did get my wife set up for LTC on her 40th bday. We've worked hard, have two of three children in college, youngest is in elementary school (special needs child). We celebrate the first anniv of the Trust early next month. Yes, because of my career all of my children have traveled every couple of years. We have a nice house which is not ostentatious, close to being paid off in the next 10 years. We have saved a substantial amount of money in 401k's, 403b and annuities. I have been declared mentally incompetent buy SS and receive SSDI which I paid in to for 45 years, an annuity worth 100k, which means my DW could be in real trouble having to support a special needs child solely on her own retirement income. We tried to do all of the right things. I know my annuity will disappear in less than a year in Memory Care, and can't figure out how to pay off half of each child's college education. Chances are I'll be alive long enough to get by the 5 year look back on everything but my annuity and between my DW and me, our family will be pumping money in to the swamp for another 35 years, so I am comfortable with having always tried to do the right thing.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

I am in my late 50s my wife is in her early 50's. Almost a year and a half ago, we decided to do some estate planning. We decided because she was much younger than me to put all of our assets in to a trust in her name. After that was complete I was diagnosed with Early onset ALZ. When I was 40, I tried to buy LTC but my insurance agent refused to sell it to me saying I was too young. I am certain he wasn't going to make much money on it and didn't want to take the time to sell a small policy. We'd been married three yrs and had our first two children, we were busy but happily raising our family. This is where I made the biggest mistake of my life, I should have gone over the agents head and demanded my LTC company sell me a policy, I was in good health and could afford the insurance. Three years later the lazy ins agent retired and I asked my new agent about LTC. During underwriting I was diagnosed with a form of Muscular Dystrophy. Automatically disqualified from LTC. Go forward 15 years, ALZ and no LTC. We did get my wife set up for LTC on her 40th bday. We've worked hard, have two of three children in college, youngest is in elementary school (special needs child). We celebrate the first anniv of the Trust early next month. Yes, because of my career all of my children have traveled every couple of years. We have a nice house which is not ostentatious, close to being paid off in the next 10 years. We have saved a substantial amount of money in 401k's, 403b and annuities. I have been declared mentally incompetent buy SS and receive SSDI which I paid in to for 45 years, an annuity worth 100k, which means my DW could be in real trouble having to support a special needs child solely on her own retirement income. We tried to do all of the right things. I know my annuity will disappear in less than a year in Memory Care, and can't figure out how to pay off half of each child's college education. Chances are I'll be alive long enough to get by the 5 year look back on everything but my annuity and between my DW and me, our family will be pumping money in to the swamp for another 35 years, so I am comfortable with having always tried to do the right thing.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

jfbctc59, I would suggest that you see a good attorney ASAP. I believe that you can create a trust for your special needs child which would shield at least some of your assets. You also can shield a certain amount for your wife, who is considered to be the community spouse. There may also be a way to put college funds away for your older children. You need much better advice than those of us on this forum can provide.
Helpful Answer (6)
Report

The real problem now is that the government is really clamping down on expenditures, and looking into every possible way to reduce taxpayer costs. You can get into some very serious legal trouble by trying to hide assets, so it's best to just make sure that you are playing by the rules.
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

Yes it is wrong. It just is.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

Best bet is to get an elder care attorney. As far as I'm concerned if something is legal - and I'm including the use of loopholes here - then it's not cheating.
Helpful Answer (4)
Report

I heartily agree with Noor75 on this one.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

3 4 5 6 7
This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.
Ask a Question
Subscribe to
Our Newsletter