Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, i get your frustration. The situation doesn’t make sense to me either and your mother could end up living years more in the nursing home. They tend to prolong the low-quality, end-of-life years that wear loved ones out, even when you like/love the person, which you and some siblings don’t.

What about continuing with this for another six months and if things are going smoothly with Mom in the nursing home, asking your siblings to re-evaluate if Larla’s daily visits are still necessary and if dropping to 2 times/week would be enough? The current situation doesn’t have to be set in stone forever.

+1. Emotions are no doubt high right now, I would punt any decisions to a few months down the line once things have sttled down.

This is exactly what I'm doing. I will admit that I was taken aback by how quickly my sister as that we continue contributing "the same amounts" that we all already have been almost immediately after telling us she had taken the decision, finally, to move our mother from rehab where she is now to the nursing home instead of back to her home. I mean, it was the second sentence in her "announcement." And of course she knows--everyone knows--that 50 percent of the total comes from me. So, I don't know, I guess I kinda chafed a bit . . . .

Transparency is really important in cases like this. Just say great; when you get a chance can I see the spreadsheet to go over everything?

I appreciate what you're saying but that's neither the point nor how our family operates. I have no doubt that my sister will use the money exactly as she says she would and isn't skimming off the top or whatever. I trust her completely. The issue is whether what she says she will do with the money is necessary. Again, we paid it before because my sister couldn't visit every day but wanted our mother at home and the woman clearly needed daily visits. But now she won't be at home and will have daily care . . .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We put my mother in a very high end nursing home and STILL had to hire someone to come in a few times a week to do her laundry properly and help her with basic things - nursing homes are understaffed and not all of the staff is excellent. With the additional help, her place was always in good shape as was she. And it made her happier to have the extra aid.

This is a good point. OP the person your sister employs will be doing this kind of stuff- right? Not justi sitting there while your mom ignores her?

No, she does none of this. Just visits.

So who does all the necessary caretaking work- your sister? This whole arrangement is a bit bizarre to me- I think it is perfectly resonable to farm out help, but paying someone $60 an hour (!!) is a lot of money to just keep your mom company and doesn't really take a lot off your sister's plate- no wonder she is frustrated and overwhelmed. If you are going to push back on something, getting the paid visitor to help with things like laundry, straightening up and assessing what supplies your mom needs replenished, etc. seems reasonable to ask.

I don't think I ever said my sister is "frustrated and overwhelmed," although she probably is and would have the right to be. In any event, I'm not going to "ask" that my sister require the woman to do anything. My sister decides what to do. She wouldn't have it any other way!

Hmmm. Your original post is misleading because you describe the woman as a "caregiver" when your subsequent posts tell a different story.

You're making a lot out of my use of one word one time. I'll clarify.

My sister wanted my mother to stay in her home. My mother needed somebody to check in on her every day. My sister actually thought my mother needed somebody checking in twice a day. Obviously, my sister can't check in every day, then again twice a day, so she lined people up to check in on her when she couldn't do it herself. For example, she (we) pay her SIL (her husband's sister) to pop in from time to time. That's what's been the arrangement.

Now that she'll be in the nursing home, our sister won't change her own routine. But she wants to continue to have the others drop in, and for us to continue paying them. That includes Larla.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, i get your frustration. The situation doesn’t make sense to me either and your mother could end up living years more in the nursing home. They tend to prolong the low-quality, end-of-life years that wear loved ones out, even when you like/love the person, which you and some siblings don’t.

What about continuing with this for another six months and if things are going smoothly with Mom in the nursing home, asking your siblings to re-evaluate if Larla’s daily visits are still necessary and if dropping to 2 times/week would be enough? The current situation doesn’t have to be set in stone forever.

+1. Emotions are no doubt high right now, I would punt any decisions to a few months down the line once things have sttled down.

This is exactly what I'm doing. I will admit that I was taken aback by how quickly my sister as that we continue contributing "the same amounts" that we all already have been almost immediately after telling us she had taken the decision, finally, to move our mother from rehab where she is now to the nursing home instead of back to her home. I mean, it was the second sentence in her "announcement." And of course she knows--everyone knows--that 50 percent of the total comes from me. So, I don't know, I guess I kinda chafed a bit . . . .

Transparency is really important in cases like this. Just say great; when you get a chance can I see the spreadsheet to go over everything?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, just send the money and be glad you aren't dealing with this. This is the easiest decision ever.

Yeah, I know. But as I just texted a sibling, in the past I sent the money to reduce my sister's burden. Now it would be to reduce her guilt. So it's really not the same thing. But yeah, I know. Just suck it up and keep sending the money.

The money is to reduce your guilt for not lifting a finger other than offering up unwanted advice about how to do it better.

X100000

Sorry, but nope. I feel no guilt and never will. And if you weren't so judgmental and actually read my posts with an open mind you'd know that.

Oh get real. You need to be honest with yourself. You’re paying a convenience fee
.

I’m the person that suggested you move home if you don’t want to pay. Because what you’re doing is essentially providing cash so you don’t have to participate in care. You might not like that framing, but it’s accurate.

If you wanted to do more than send money, you would arrange to be there. No matter what your situation was.

It's not accurate because it assumes there's an obligation or a perceived obligation whereas in my case there is neither.

So why are you doing it?

I've been taking the path of least resistance. I certainly don't want hard feelings or to start a fight with a sister who I was very close with growing up but who I don't see very often these days.

Basically this is the deal: my spouse and I, early retired, have professional degrees and our siblings obviously know where we worked and what we did and they assume, rightly, that we have more money than them. It's just a matter of degree -- every one of them is fine or better and no one is hurting but we are clearly the best off financially and it wouldn't even be possible to hide it. So the expectation was that we would contribute the most.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We put my mother in a very high end nursing home and STILL had to hire someone to come in a few times a week to do her laundry properly and help her with basic things - nursing homes are understaffed and not all of the staff is excellent. With the additional help, her place was always in good shape as was she. And it made her happier to have the extra aid.

This is a good point. OP the person your sister employs will be doing this kind of stuff- right? Not justi sitting there while your mom ignores her?

No, she does none of this. Just visits.

So who does all the necessary caretaking work- your sister? This whole arrangement is a bit bizarre to me- I think it is perfectly resonable to farm out help, but paying someone $60 an hour (!!) is a lot of money to just keep your mom company and doesn't really take a lot off your sister's plate- no wonder she is frustrated and overwhelmed. If you are going to push back on something, getting the paid visitor to help with things like laundry, straightening up and assessing what supplies your mom needs replenished, etc. seems reasonable to ask.

I don't think I ever said my sister is "frustrated and overwhelmed," although she probably is and would have the right to be. In any event, I'm not going to "ask" that my sister require the woman to do anything. My sister decides what to do. She wouldn't have it any other way!

Hmmm. Your original post is misleading because you describe the woman as a "caregiver" when your subsequent posts tell a different story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually it's time for mommy to go on Medicaid.

She already is. The nursing home is a Medicaid nursing home and according to OP it's nice.
That said, some of these places are running on bare bones so if you can pay for an assistant you should. If you can visit, you should as well. I don't know why this is hard to understand.

Somebody said it upthread. The patients who never have visitors or paid helpers can be if not neglected or abused, sometimes sidelined and put last. That's very sad.

I totally agree but here's the thing: my sister will be a very frequent visitor regardless of Larla. Not because I "expect" it, but because she just will be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, i get your frustration. The situation doesn’t make sense to me either and your mother could end up living years more in the nursing home. They tend to prolong the low-quality, end-of-life years that wear loved ones out, even when you like/love the person, which you and some siblings don’t.

What about continuing with this for another six months and if things are going smoothly with Mom in the nursing home, asking your siblings to re-evaluate if Larla’s daily visits are still necessary and if dropping to 2 times/week would be enough? The current situation doesn’t have to be set in stone forever.

+1. Emotions are no doubt high right now, I would punt any decisions to a few months down the line once things have sttled down.

This is exactly what I'm doing. I will admit that I was taken aback by how quickly my sister as that we continue contributing "the same amounts" that we all already have been almost immediately after telling us she had taken the decision, finally, to move our mother from rehab where she is now to the nursing home instead of back to her home. I mean, it was the second sentence in her "announcement." And of course she knows--everyone knows--that 50 percent of the total comes from me. So, I don't know, I guess I kinda chafed a bit . . . .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, just send the money and be glad you aren't dealing with this. This is the easiest decision ever.

Yeah, I know. But as I just texted a sibling, in the past I sent the money to reduce my sister's burden. Now it would be to reduce her guilt. So it's really not the same thing. But yeah, I know. Just suck it up and keep sending the money.

The money is to reduce your guilt for not lifting a finger other than offering up unwanted advice about how to do it better.

X100000

Sorry, but nope. I feel no guilt and never will. And if you weren't so judgmental and actually read my posts with an open mind you'd know that.

Oh get real. You need to be honest with yourself. You’re paying a convenience fee
.

I’m the person that suggested you move home if you don’t want to pay. Because what you’re doing is essentially providing cash so you don’t have to participate in care. You might not like that framing, but it’s accurate.

If you wanted to do more than send money, you would arrange to be there. No matter what your situation was.

It's not accurate because it assumes there's an obligation or a perceived obligation whereas in my case there is neither.

So why are you doing it?