Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any countries out there that provide an equivalent level/amount of care for the elderly as one would expect at one of these expensive facilities but for a much more reasonable cost? Or is this a US thing?

My neighbor is of Indian descent and her father still lives in India. Apparently, the gov. provides 24 hr care for him (he's 90+). He can't come to the US anymore b/c they can no longer buy temporary health ins. for him. And he gets better care in India.

He was likely a govt worker to get that. But it doesn't matter really because in India you can spend the equivalent of ~$500 USD/month and have excellent round the clock nursing care--typically 2 nurses that work opposing shifts. That would cost $20K+/month in US, likely closer to $30K and no guarantee that the nurses don't just not show up---nursing care is hard to get consistency for only $25/hour.

I am Indian and you are painting a really rosy picture here. The poverty in India is shocking to me when I go back. The reason why things are so cheap is because the average Indian lives on a few dollars a day and the entire country has rampant slavery and extreme labor abuses. Most likely said nurse heads home to a slum at night.

Most Indians are taken care of by extended family not just out of necessity, but out of tradition.

I'm well aware of the poverty in India. Married into an Indian family. I agree most are taken care of by the family, but the fact is you can still get good in home care for a decent price. Just like most UMC have a "driver" because it's only $250USD/month, and still relatively cheap for UMC+ Indians. When you hire the in home help, you are providing them a safe, reliable job and paying them more than no job. We hired actual nurses, not just a warm body to be there. These were nurses who had completed their degree and training. They were happy to work in this environment rather than a hospital and they became family (we treated them well). Brought them to USA when ILs came where they lived in our homes---we provided everything and paid them well, and when ILs passed, we worked to get them the documentation for them to remain in the USA and continue their lives here. Win-win for everyone. They were extremely well treated and are forever grateful for being able to come to the USA. Their being our family nurses put their lives on a whole new trajectory.

Yes, because of rampant poverty, a massive population, income disparity, and lack of legal protections, UMC families (a tiny portion of the population) in India can afford to afford to have drivers, live in staff etc- something reserved for only the extremely wealthy in developed countries. Not sure it’s something to boast about.

And when you talk about bringing your employees to the US and “paying them well” I certainly hope it was on par with the going local rates….not just relative to what they would have earned in India.

DP. Why do you care? I bet you won't care 2 shits about social justice when you start seeing the shadow of the man with the sickle. Take care of yourself, bro! We all know what we are doing. Don't need your sanctimonious BS.

Sure, take care of yourself first. No issues there- just don’t brag about how much better the system is in your home country when the majority of the population is living in squalor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any countries out there that provide an equivalent level/amount of care for the elderly as one would expect at one of these expensive facilities but for a much more reasonable cost? Or is this a US thing?

My neighbor is of Indian descent and her father still lives in India. Apparently, the gov. provides 24 hr care for him (he's 90+). He can't come to the US anymore b/c they can no longer buy temporary health ins. for him. And he gets better care in India.

He was likely a govt worker to get that. But it doesn't matter really because in India you can spend the equivalent of ~$500 USD/month and have excellent round the clock nursing care--typically 2 nurses that work opposing shifts. That would cost $20K+/month in US, likely closer to $30K and no guarantee that the nurses don't just not show up---nursing care is hard to get consistency for only $25/hour.

I am Indian and you are painting a really rosy picture here. The poverty in India is shocking to me when I go back. The reason why things are so cheap is because the average Indian lives on a few dollars a day and the entire country has rampant slavery and extreme labor abuses. Most likely said nurse heads home to a slum at night.

Most Indians are taken care of by extended family not just out of necessity, but out of tradition.

I'm well aware of the poverty in India. Married into an Indian family. I agree most are taken care of by the family, but the fact is you can still get good in home care for a decent price. Just like most UMC have a "driver" because it's only $250USD/month, and still relatively cheap for UMC+ Indians. When you hire the in home help, you are providing them a safe, reliable job and paying them more than no job. We hired actual nurses, not just a warm body to be there. These were nurses who had completed their degree and training. They were happy to work in this environment rather than a hospital and they became family (we treated them well). Brought them to USA when ILs came where they lived in our homes---we provided everything and paid them well, and when ILs passed, we worked to get them the documentation for them to remain in the USA and continue their lives here. Win-win for everyone. They were extremely well treated and are forever grateful for being able to come to the USA. Their being our family nurses put their lives on a whole new trajectory.

Yes, because of rampant poverty, a massive population, income disparity, and lack of legal protections, UMC families (a tiny portion of the population) in India can afford to afford to have drivers, live in staff etc- something reserved for only the extremely wealthy in developed countries. Not sure it’s something to boast about.

And when you talk about bringing your employees to the US and “paying them well” I certainly hope it was on par with the going local rates….not just relative to what they would have earned in India.

First, we provided them a place to live, meals and all needs fully provided for. Helped them get certified as nurses in the USA (paid for the classes/etc), also paid them a decent salary. Not as high as nurses in USA, but when they are living with you and you are providing food, clothing, cell phones, everything, you don't need to be paying them $25+/hr. We also paid all expenses (lawyers) to get them their green cards once we no longer needed their services---and they lived with us during that time until they got their nursing jobs. After 5-6 months of them having their "real" nursing jobs, we helped them find an apartment in a safe area and got them furniture and settled into the apartment together. So yes, we paid them well, we paid $50K+ to get them their green cards, we provided them housing and all expenses (clothing, cell phones, etc) until they got "real jobs" and could afford to move out on their own. They were family and still are. They lived with us for 2 years after we no longer needed their services and they were able to move out.
Above and beyond. We could have just let them return to India once we no longer needed their services---but we didn't. I would say they were well treated and well paid. Without us, they would not be living in the USA (it's been 20 years and they are thriving, have their own families and kids and are so appreciative that they were able to come to USA).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lifelong planning and savings. Also LTC insurance.

Yo soy Latina y una immigrants. Me pagaron poco los gringos y no me alcanza Para retiramlento. Nadie fue mi mentor o nada Para Saber esto. Que puedo hacer de vieja?

I'm Latina and an immigrants. The gringos paid me little for my work and I don't have enough for retirement. Nobody was my mentor or nothing to know this. What can I do now that I'm old?

Your family takes care of you.

My 2 kids have their own family.

Hispanic families have a different mindset than you.

Then Medicaid assuming you’re eligible or go back home.

You want cheap labor then kick me out of the country?

The problem is, the people who paid you poorly are also in the same boat as you (can't afford elder care). Just that they have nowhere else to go.. You at least have a home country to go to.

They have a retirement plan and lifelong savings. They have money. They made enough to pay me. They are richer than me. I have no one in my home country. My family is here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any countries out there that provide an equivalent level/amount of care for the elderly as one would expect at one of these expensive facilities but for a much more reasonable cost? Or is this a US thing?

My neighbor is of Indian descent and her father still lives in India. Apparently, the gov. provides 24 hr care for him (he's 90+). He can't come to the US anymore b/c they can no longer buy temporary health ins. for him. And he gets better care in India.

He was likely a govt worker to get that. But it doesn't matter really because in India you can spend the equivalent of ~$500 USD/month and have excellent round the clock nursing care--typically 2 nurses that work opposing shifts. That would cost $20K+/month in US, likely closer to $30K and no guarantee that the nurses don't just not show up---nursing care is hard to get consistency for only $25/hour.

I am Indian and you are painting a really rosy picture here. The poverty in India is shocking to me when I go back. The reason why things are so cheap is because the average Indian lives on a few dollars a day and the entire country has rampant slavery and extreme labor abuses. Most likely said nurse heads home to a slum at night.

Most Indians are taken care of by extended family not just out of necessity, but out of tradition.

I'm well aware of the poverty in India. Married into an Indian family. I agree most are taken care of by the family, but the fact is you can still get good in home care for a decent price. Just like most UMC have a "driver" because it's only $250USD/month, and still relatively cheap for UMC+ Indians. When you hire the in home help, you are providing them a safe, reliable job and paying them more than no job. We hired actual nurses, not just a warm body to be there. These were nurses who had completed their degree and training. They were happy to work in this environment rather than a hospital and they became family (we treated them well). Brought them to USA when ILs came where they lived in our homes---we provided everything and paid them well, and when ILs passed, we worked to get them the documentation for them to remain in the USA and continue their lives here. Win-win for everyone. They were extremely well treated and are forever grateful for being able to come to the USA. Their being our family nurses put their lives on a whole new trajectory.

Yes, because of rampant poverty, a massive population, income disparity, and lack of legal protections, UMC families (a tiny portion of the population) in India can afford to afford to have drivers, live in staff etc- something reserved for only the extremely wealthy in developed countries. Not sure it’s something to boast about.

And when you talk about bringing your employees to the US and “paying them well” I certainly hope it was on par with the going local rates….not just relative to what they would have earned in India.

DP. Why do you care? I bet you won't care 2 shits about social justice when you start seeing the shadow of the man with the sickle. Take care of yourself, bro! We all know what we are doing. Don't need your sanctimonious BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless you're wealthy, it's LTC insurance or Medicaid. Get your assets out of your name 5 years before you need Medicaid LTC or the state will take it all!

Well, no. That would be unethical. Why do you think others should pay for your health care? Are you a welfare queen, too? Do you like the dole?

DP. I know you are looking for a 'discussion' but why do you think a person, few years away from death, would really care about ethics or if society foots the bill? I wouldn't? We have enough money (and hopefully a lot more in 30 years when we hit our 80s) but I think it's society's job to take care of the elderly. Shame on you for not voting out every bast*rd that is trying to move the country in the opposite direction.

Society DOES take care of the elderly. What you are suggesting is that the elderly should be able to keep all their assets at the same time. That’s fine, if you raise the money for their care elsewhere (ie tax the rich or a consumption tax or whatever) but we don’t do that. Advocating FRAUD and sheltering assets to duck the cost of care under the current system is disgusting and unethical. Freeloaders suck.

Your ignorance is showing.. please come back when you have learned the difference between between tax planning and tax fraud.

Estate planning attorney here. “Medicaid planning” is impoverishing yourself on paper to qualify for gov’t benefits that are intended for the poor. Plain and simple. I agree the cost of long-term care is a terrible shame. But it doesn’t follow that I shouldn’t have to pay it because damnit I worked hard and I want my kids to get my money.

“Impoverishing yourself on paper” is a nasty, derogatory, calumny, used perjoratively to describe seeking and following expert legal advice to structure assets to obtain maximum benefits from a public benefit plan according to its legislative and regulatory terms. It is akin to prudent tax planning, including (yes) estate planning. Whatever someone else may think, these provisions are part of the law. Congress and the regulators know they are there. The envy, hatred and condescension toward people in need in US society is appalling. One would think that the detractors were being dragged to open their own checkbook for someone else.

Sorry, Medicaid is meant for the poor, not middle class people with assets who want their kids to inherit those assets instead of paying for their own care. It is out and out fraud to “structure” assets to take advantage of benefits meant for the poor.

If the benefits truly were meant for everyone, there would be no need to hide… er, I mean “structure” assets in order to appear eligible for the program.

Complying with the law is fraud? Because it offends your ignorant and judgmental sensibilities? You don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Yes, “complying with the law” in a way that allows the older person’s assets to be assigned to another family member is essentially a sneaky way to make a person look poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid benefits.

If these benefits were meant for everyone, then people would be able to access them without having to appear to be poor enough to meet an eligibility standard.

ooo.. call the cops! call the tax man! Let's throw these fraudsters in jail..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless you're wealthy, it's LTC insurance or Medicaid. Get your assets out of your name 5 years before you need Medicaid LTC or the state will take it all!

What if your assets are already in a trust

You need to work with an attorney that specializes in Medicaid LTC planning to ensure your trust is Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) compliant. Regardless of what PPs say, Congress passed very specific requirements governing asset eligibility for the Medicaid LTC program, and you have to follow those rules to a T. The Medicaid program exists because LTC is so extraordinarily expensive that it is out of reach except for the very independently wealthy, and it does not serve the public good to have seniors and the disabled left to die in their homes.

My plan for when I hit retirement is to buy a small unit with lifetime continuing care in a retirement complex and a second house or condo somewhere either for winters (six months in Florida) or coastal New England (five months in spring to fall). When the time comes, I can sell the second property and upgrade the unit to a bigger 2-bedroom and live there full time. But I will have a foot in the door so they can't kick me out if I suddenly start declining, physically or cognitively. I am single, will always be single so no spouse to help take care of me. I want the guarantee of lifetime care no matter what happens. Yes, expensive, but I can make it happen. This plan is based on what good friends of my parents have done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless you're wealthy, it's LTC insurance or Medicaid. Get your assets out of your name 5 years before you need Medicaid LTC or the state will take it all!

Well, no. That would be unethical. Why do you think others should pay for your health care? Are you a welfare queen, too? Do you like the dole?

DP. I know you are looking for a 'discussion' but why do you think a person, few years away from death, would really care about ethics or if society foots the bill? I wouldn't? We have enough money (and hopefully a lot more in 30 years when we hit our 80s) but I think it's society's job to take care of the elderly. Shame on you for not voting out every bast*rd that is trying to move the country in the opposite direction.

Society DOES take care of the elderly. What you are suggesting is that the elderly should be able to keep all their assets at the same time. That’s fine, if you raise the money for their care elsewhere (ie tax the rich or a consumption tax or whatever) but we don’t do that. Advocating FRAUD and sheltering assets to duck the cost of care under the current system is disgusting and unethical. Freeloaders suck.

Your ignorance is showing.. please come back when you have learned the difference between between tax planning and tax fraud.

Estate planning attorney here. “Medicaid planning” is impoverishing yourself on paper to qualify for gov’t benefits that are intended for the poor. Plain and simple. I agree the cost of long-term care is a terrible shame. But it doesn’t follow that I shouldn’t have to pay it because damnit I worked hard and I want my kids to get my money.

“Impoverishing yourself on paper” is a nasty, derogatory, calumny, used perjoratively to describe seeking and following expert legal advice to structure assets to obtain maximum benefits from a public benefit plan according to its legislative and regulatory terms. It is akin to prudent tax planning, including (yes) estate planning. Whatever someone else may think, these provisions are part of the law. Congress and the regulators know they are there. The envy, hatred and condescension toward people in need in US society is appalling. One would think that the detractors were being dragged to open their own checkbook for someone else.

Sorry, Medicaid is meant for the poor, not middle class people with assets who want their kids to inherit those assets instead of paying for their own care. It is out and out fraud to “structure” assets to take advantage of benefits meant for the poor.

If the benefits truly were meant for everyone, there would be no need to hide… er, I mean “structure” assets in order to appear eligible for the program.

Complying with the law is fraud? Because it offends your ignorant and judgmental sensibilities? You don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

It is a legal loophole that is being exploited, like many others. It is not the intention of the law. In both states I practice law in there have been crackdowns by Medicaid on tactics used, but lawyers are creative. If they increased the look back too far, for example, they would risk sweeping up genuinely poor people. Many technically legal maneuvers are unethical (and precarious), and the reason it’s called “Medicaid planning” is because it takes an expert lawyer to pull it off.

Exactly. This is why we can’t have nice things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless you're wealthy, it's LTC insurance or Medicaid. Get your assets out of your name 5 years before you need Medicaid LTC or the state will take it all!

Well, no. That would be unethical. Why do you think others should pay for your health care? Are you a welfare queen, too? Do you like the dole?

DP. I know you are looking for a 'discussion' but why do you think a person, few years away from death, would really care about ethics or if society foots the bill? I wouldn't? We have enough money (and hopefully a lot more in 30 years when we hit our 80s) but I think it's society's job to take care of the elderly. Shame on you for not voting out every bast*rd that is trying to move the country in the opposite direction.

Society DOES take care of the elderly. What you are suggesting is that the elderly should be able to keep all their assets at the same time. That’s fine, if you raise the money for their care elsewhere (ie tax the rich or a consumption tax or whatever) but we don’t do that. Advocating FRAUD and sheltering assets to duck the cost of care under the current system is disgusting and unethical. Freeloaders suck.

Your ignorance is showing.. please come back when you have learned the difference between between tax planning and tax fraud.

Estate planning attorney here. “Medicaid planning” is impoverishing yourself on paper to qualify for gov’t benefits that are intended for the poor. Plain and simple. I agree the cost of long-term care is a terrible shame. But it doesn’t follow that I shouldn’t have to pay it because damnit I worked hard and I want my kids to get my money.

“Impoverishing yourself on paper” is a nasty, derogatory, calumny, used perjoratively to describe seeking and following expert legal advice to structure assets to obtain maximum benefits from a public benefit plan according to its legislative and regulatory terms. It is akin to prudent tax planning, including (yes) estate planning. Whatever someone else may think, these provisions are part of the law. Congress and the regulators know they are there. The envy, hatred and condescension toward people in need in US society is appalling. One would think that the detractors were being dragged to open their own checkbook for someone else.

Sorry, Medicaid is meant for the poor, not middle class people with assets who want their kids to inherit those assets instead of paying for their own care. It is out and out fraud to “structure” assets to take advantage of benefits meant for the poor.

If the benefits truly were meant for everyone, there would be no need to hide… er, I mean “structure” assets in order to appear eligible for the program.

Complying with the law is fraud? Because it offends your ignorant and judgmental sensibilities? You don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

It is a legal loophole that is being exploited, like many others. It is not the intention of the law. In both states I practice law in there have been crackdowns by Medicaid on tactics used, but lawyers are creative. If they increased the look back too far, for example, they would risk sweeping up genuinely poor people. Many technically legal maneuvers are unethical (and precarious), and the reason it’s called “Medicaid planning” is because it takes an expert lawyer to pull it off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any countries out there that provide an equivalent level/amount of care for the elderly as one would expect at one of these expensive facilities but for a much more reasonable cost? Or is this a US thing?

My neighbor is of Indian descent and her father still lives in India. Apparently, the gov. provides 24 hr care for him (he's 90+). He can't come to the US anymore b/c they can no longer buy temporary health ins. for him. And he gets better care in India.

He was likely a govt worker to get that. But it doesn't matter really because in India you can spend the equivalent of ~$500 USD/month and have excellent round the clock nursing care--typically 2 nurses that work opposing shifts. That would cost $20K+/month in US, likely closer to $30K and no guarantee that the nurses don't just not show up---nursing care is hard to get consistency for only $25/hour.

I am Indian and you are painting a really rosy picture here. The poverty in India is shocking to me when I go back. The reason why things are so cheap is because the average Indian lives on a few dollars a day and the entire country has rampant slavery and extreme labor abuses. Most likely said nurse heads home to a slum at night.

Most Indians are taken care of by extended family not just out of necessity, but out of tradition.

I'm well aware of the poverty in India. Married into an Indian family. I agree most are taken care of by the family, but the fact is you can still get good in home care for a decent price. Just like most UMC have a "driver" because it's only $250USD/month, and still relatively cheap for UMC+ Indians. When you hire the in home help, you are providing them a safe, reliable job and paying them more than no job. We hired actual nurses, not just a warm body to be there. These were nurses who had completed their degree and training. They were happy to work in this environment rather than a hospital and they became family (we treated them well). Brought them to USA when ILs came where they lived in our homes---we provided everything and paid them well, and when ILs passed, we worked to get them the documentation for them to remain in the USA and continue their lives here. Win-win for everyone. They were extremely well treated and are forever grateful for being able to come to the USA. Their being our family nurses put their lives on a whole new trajectory.

Yes, because of rampant poverty, a massive population, income disparity, and lack of legal protections, UMC families (a tiny portion of the population) in India can afford to afford to have drivers, live in staff etc- something reserved for only the extremely wealthy in developed countries. Not sure it’s something to boast about.

And when you talk about bringing your employees to the US and “paying them well” I certainly hope it was on par with the going local rates….not just relative to what they would have earned in India.

There is a difference between unethical and fraudulent. It's not fraudulent, but it is unethical.

Anonymous wrote:This may sound kind of horrible, but my dad says he is relieved that both of his parents died in quick succession when we kids were toddlers.

Not really.. My dad passed away at 76. My inlaws are 87 and 84. Just a few years ago, both were very active, traveled a lot, etc. FIL's decline started suddenly and now he needs help with a lot of things with family is taking care of him for now since he's still mobile. Knowing their family history, I suspect he'll be around for at least another 5+ years but health will deteriorate. While we have the resources for paid elder care for FIL, I'm certainly glad my dad did not have to suffer through this while at the same time missing him dearly..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless you're wealthy, it's LTC insurance or Medicaid. Get your assets out of your name 5 years before you need Medicaid LTC or the state will take it all!

Well, no. That would be unethical. Why do you think others should pay for your health care? Are you a welfare queen, too? Do you like the dole?

DP. I know you are looking for a 'discussion' but why do you think a person, few years away from death, would really care about ethics or if society foots the bill? I wouldn't? We have enough money (and hopefully a lot more in 30 years when we hit our 80s) but I think it's society's job to take care of the elderly. Shame on you for not voting out every bast*rd that is trying to move the country in the opposite direction.

Society DOES take care of the elderly. What you are suggesting is that the elderly should be able to keep all their assets at the same time. That’s fine, if you raise the money for their care elsewhere (ie tax the rich or a consumption tax or whatever) but we don’t do that. Advocating FRAUD and sheltering assets to duck the cost of care under the current system is disgusting and unethical. Freeloaders suck.

Your ignorance is showing.. please come back when you have learned the difference between between tax planning and tax fraud.

Estate planning attorney here. “Medicaid planning” is impoverishing yourself on paper to qualify for gov’t benefits that are intended for the poor. Plain and simple. I agree the cost of long-term care is a terrible shame. But it doesn’t follow that I shouldn’t have to pay it because damnit I worked hard and I want my kids to get my money.

You are entitled to your opinion (and I agree with you on this) but it doesn't qualify as fraud, does it?

It is certainly dishonest to take steps to appear to be poor when one actually is not in order to receive benefits that are meant for the poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lifelong planning and savings. Also LTC insurance.

Yo soy Latina y una immigrants. Me pagaron poco los gringos y no me alcanza Para retiramlento. Nadie fue mi mentor o nada Para Saber esto. Que puedo hacer de vieja?

I'm Latina and an immigrants. The gringos paid me little for my work and I don't have enough for retirement. Nobody was my mentor or nothing to know this. What can I do now that I'm old?

Your family takes care of you.

My 2 kids have their own family.

Hispanic families have a different mindset than you.

Then Medicaid assuming you’re eligible or go back home.

You want cheap labor then kick me out of the country?

The problem is, the people who paid you poorly are also in the same boat as you (can't afford elder care). Just that they have nowhere else to go.. You at least have a home country to go to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless you're wealthy, it's LTC insurance or Medicaid. Get your assets out of your name 5 years before you need Medicaid LTC or the state will take it all!

Well, no. That would be unethical. Why do you think others should pay for your health care? Are you a welfare queen, too? Do you like the dole?

DP. I know you are looking for a 'discussion' but why do you think a person, few years away from death, would really care about ethics or if society foots the bill? I wouldn't? We have enough money (and hopefully a lot more in 30 years when we hit our 80s) but I think it's society's job to take care of the elderly. Shame on you for not voting out every bast*rd that is trying to move the country in the opposite direction.

Society DOES take care of the elderly. What you are suggesting is that the elderly should be able to keep all their assets at the same time. That’s fine, if you raise the money for their care elsewhere (ie tax the rich or a consumption tax or whatever) but we don’t do that. Advocating FRAUD and sheltering assets to duck the cost of care under the current system is disgusting and unethical. Freeloaders suck.

Your ignorance is showing.. please come back when you have learned the difference between between tax planning and tax fraud.

Estate planning attorney here. “Medicaid planning” is impoverishing yourself on paper to qualify for gov’t benefits that are intended for the poor. Plain and simple. I agree the cost of long-term care is a terrible shame. But it doesn’t follow that I shouldn’t have to pay it because damnit I worked hard and I want my kids to get my money.

“Impoverishing yourself on paper” is a nasty, derogatory, calumny, used perjoratively to describe seeking and following expert legal advice to structure assets to obtain maximum benefits from a public benefit plan according to its legislative and regulatory terms. It is akin to prudent tax planning, including (yes) estate planning. Whatever someone else may think, these provisions are part of the law. Congress and the regulators know they are there. The envy, hatred and condescension toward people in need in US society is appalling. One would think that the detractors were being dragged to open their own checkbook for someone else.

Sorry, Medicaid is meant for the poor, not middle class people with assets who want their kids to inherit those assets instead of paying for their own care. It is out and out fraud to “structure” assets to take advantage of benefits meant for the poor.

If the benefits truly were meant for everyone, there would be no need to hide… er, I mean “structure” assets in order to appear eligible for the program.

Complying with the law is fraud? Because it offends your ignorant and judgmental sensibilities? You don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Yes, “complying with the law” in a way that allows the older person’s assets to be assigned to another family member is essentially a sneaky way to make a person look poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid benefits.

If these benefits were meant for everyone, then people would be able to access them without having to appear to be poor enough to meet an eligibility standard.