Anonymous wrote:I was surprised to learn that cancer is the number one condition for disability insurance claims according to Guardian. This is a good reminder to have a good disability policy that is separate from your employer and replaces 80 percent of your income.

There’s no need to have a separate policy from work unless you do not have long term disability insurance offered through work. If your employment terminates due to disability while on disability benefits, you do not lose your disability benefits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always hear stories of people getting cancer and going bankrupt even with insurance. How is this possible with out of pocket maximums? Unless you need a full time caretaker or an experimental treatment, won’t 99% of insured patients just hit their max each year? What am I missing?

You aren’t missing anything. Of course some people can’t afford to pay their max each year or demand some kind of treatment that is not covered. When you dig in, there is always some reason beyond “cancer bankrupted me.” Even if we had to pay the OOP max for both in-network and our-of-network treatment each year, it still would not bankrupt us. I think the other issue is if the sick spouse can’t work and the other spouse isn’t employed or makes too little.

NP. I’m a sahm and before that I was a teacher making 40,000 a year. If my spouse wasn’t able to work due to illness, we’d lose our health insurance and even though I’d of course get a job as quickly as possible we may definitely be in serious financial trouble.

If your spouse lost his job, you’d immediately qualify for the ACA health insurance with subsidies due to low income.

I was surprised to learn that cancer is the number one condition for disability insurance claims according to Guardian. This is a good reminder to have a good disability policy that is separate from your employer and replaces 80 percent of your income.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always hear stories of people getting cancer and going bankrupt even with insurance. How is this possible with out of pocket maximums? Unless you need a full time caretaker or an experimental treatment, won’t 99% of insured patients just hit their max each year? What am I missing?

You aren’t missing anything. Of course some people can’t afford to pay their max each year or demand some kind of treatment that is not covered. When you dig in, there is always some reason beyond “cancer bankrupted me.” Even if we had to pay the OOP max for both in-network and our-of-network treatment each year, it still would not bankrupt us. I think the other issue is if the sick spouse can’t work and the other spouse isn’t employed or makes too little.

NP. I’m a sahm and before that I was a teacher making 40,000 a year. If my spouse wasn’t able to work due to illness, we’d lose our health insurance and even though I’d of course get a job as quickly as possible we may definitely be in serious financial trouble.

Anonymous wrote:I always hear stories of people getting cancer and going bankrupt even with insurance. How is this possible with out of pocket maximums? Unless you need a full time caretaker or an experimental treatment, won’t 99% of insured patients just hit their max each year? What am I missing?

You aren’t missing anything. Of course some people can’t afford to pay their max each year or demand some kind of treatment that is not covered. When you dig in, there is always some reason beyond “cancer bankrupted me.” Even if we had to pay the OOP max for both in-network and our-of-network treatment each year, it still would not bankrupt us. I think the other issue is if the sick spouse can’t work and the other spouse isn’t employed or makes too little.

I always hear stories of people getting cancer and going bankrupt even with insurance. How is this possible with out of pocket maximums? Unless you need a full time caretaker or an experimental treatment, won’t 99% of insured patients just hit their max each year? What am I missing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ill spouse qualifies for medicaid after 50% of the couple's assets are spent for their care. No need to divorce. If 505 left for you isn't enough for you, that's being kind of awful.

So, you want OP (presumably the wife, who will left alone to take care of the innocent child / children), to just needlessly piss-away 50 % of the “couples assets” (maybe including 50% of the 529 for the kids college) and only then apply for Medicaid ?

How does that make any sense for her?

If I had a cancer diagnosis right now, I’d immediately begin to think only about what’s financially best for my wife and kids after I’m gone. If that means divorce, then of course I’d do that for my family. It is their best interest that matters most.

DP. Did you read the reddit thread and the comments? The post doesn't really make sense. If you have any sort of health insurance at all, and any sort of savings at all, then divorce and spending life savings is unnecessary.

Anonymous wrote:Ill spouse qualifies for medicaid after 50% of the couple's assets are spent for their care. No need to divorce. If 505 left for you isn't enough for you, that's being kind of awful.

So, you want OP (presumably the wife, who will left alone to take care of the innocent child / children), to just needlessly piss-away 50 % of the “couples assets” (maybe including 50% of the 529 for the kids college) and only then apply for Medicaid ?

How does that make any sense for her?

If I had a cancer diagnosis right now, I’d immediately begin to think only about what’s financially best for my wife and kids after I’m gone. If that means divorce, then of course I’d do that for my family. It is their best interest that matters most.

Ill spouse qualifies for medicaid after 50% of the couple's assets are spent for their care. No need to divorce. If 505 left for you isn't enough for you, that's being kind of awful.

Anonymous wrote:They might be able to get Medicaid but not long term care so it’s not a good plan.

DP.

Might be a very good plan in OP’s situation.

All depends on the personal details/circumstances.

Maybe there is no “long term” in her souses’ case?

They might be able to get Medicaid but not long term care so it’s not a good plan.

It's a common move in cases like this to make a person as poor as possible so Medicaid/Medicare will cover the health expenses. I don't think you necessarily need to divorce, but it's definitely a known move to transfer assets to other family members to get coverage for health care. I seem to remember my father talking about a 5-year rule in that the benefits only kick in if the assets were transferred more than five years earlier. I'm not entirely sure how something like divorce would be handled but the Medicaid/Medicare folks do look back to see what you've been doing with your money.

Ask Newt Gingrich!

There's a reason I stick to only a handful of subreddits....

I was reading this on Reddit and found it very thought provoking and maddening that this is the state of the USA:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ShittyLifeProTips/comments/12qjd47/lpt_if_you_are_in_the_us_and_you_or_your_spouse/

How would this work in real life? Could you liquidate everything and transfer all the cash to your spouse before divorcing? Then die penniless after you're on your own while getting cancer treatment?