Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he doesn't want to bankrupt your future inheritance to pay for end of life care?

Then he shouldn’t. Take some fentanyl. Why should we have to pay for his care so she can get an inheritance? This is exactly why we save so we don’t end up sharing a room in some nasty welfare facility getting bedsores and abused.

And how does an average elderly person get their hands on fentanyl?

NP here
They can ask around. Apparently it's in ALL the street drugs now. Off the top of my head, I don't know anyone who sells (or uses) illegal drugs. I'm sure if I started asking around I could find some. I'd probably start at the public library.

Ask any teenager.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he doesn't want to bankrupt your future inheritance to pay for end of life care?

Then he shouldn’t. Take some fentanyl. Why should we have to pay for his care so she can get an inheritance? This is exactly why we save so we don’t end up sharing a room in some nasty welfare facility getting bedsores and abused.

And how does an average elderly person get their hands on fentanyl?

NP here
They can ask around. Apparently it's in ALL the street drugs now. Off the top of my head, I don't know anyone who sells (or uses) illegal drugs. I'm sure if I started asking around I could find some. I'd probably start at the public library.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your dad is smart to do this. In many states the Medicaid nursing homes are really good and in some states Medicaid can be used to pay for in-home care. Why would you pay for this stuff yourself when the government can pay for it? Does your dad pay for his doctors out of pocket just because he has the money or does he have Medicare pay for it? I assume he has Medicare pay for it.

This is not putting the government "on the hook" any more than having Medicare pay for heart surgery is putting the government "on the hook." Your dad would be be taking advantage of programs he is legally entitled to. If Congress did not want people doing this, they could extend the lookback period.

How is hiding your assets to get Medicaid morally acceptable but working under the table and getting food stamps morally unacceptable for people here ?

Putting your assets into an irrevocable trust isn't hiding anything. It is literally giving your assets away to someone else. It is also completely legal. You have to do it 5 years before you even apply for Medicaid before Medicaid will pay for anything. You can hope that the person you give the money to will continue to use the money, now THEIR assets, to help your quality of life. But they have no legal requirement to do so.

I don't think working under the table and getting help to pay for food is morally unacceptable, but it is illegal, so you risk getting caught and facing penalties. In addition, if you work but don't pay taxes, you are aren't paying in to social security or disability and you don't qualify for unemployment insurance and all of those things that form our society's safety net. So it isn't really a good idea for you to do this.

But I think SNAP assistance should be available to everyone.

Anonymous wrote:Your dad is smart to do this. In many states the Medicaid nursing homes are really good and in some states Medicaid can be used to pay for in-home care. Why would you pay for this stuff yourself when the government can pay for it? Does your dad pay for his doctors out of pocket just because he has the money or does he have Medicare pay for it? I assume he has Medicare pay for it.

This is not putting the government "on the hook" any more than having Medicare pay for heart surgery is putting the government "on the hook." Your dad would be be taking advantage of programs he is legally entitled to. If Congress did not want people doing this, they could extend the lookback period.

How is hiding your assets to get Medicaid morally acceptable but working under the table and getting food stamps morally unacceptable for people here ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's info for maryland.

Money Follow the Person

https://health.maryland.gov/mmcp/longtermcare/Pages/Maryland-Money-Follows-the-Person.aspx

If your parent is ever so sick that he needs to live in a nursing home for at least one day, and qualifies for Medicaid, he can use Medicaid to pay for him to be able to live at home

There's also HCBS Waivers

https://health.maryland.gov/mmcp/waiverprograms/pages/home.aspx

I tried this. They offered about 10 hours a month of care.

That's ten hours more than the nothing you get from Maryland if you aren't on Medicaid.

Anonymous wrote:I am new to all this, and reading through this thread trying to make sense of it for our circumstances.

If a senior has few assets — say, only a home, and not an especially valuable one, is it then *especially* important to put assets in trust? The asset/s will never be enough to pay for non-Medicaid care, so individual is likely looking at a Medicaid bed no matter what. But they don’t want to be completely destitute.

For someone like this, it feels like a trust is the difference between Medicaid + destitution vs. Medicaid + some tiny bit of security.

Am I understanding this wrong?

You understand it correctly, but ... to put your assets in an irrevocable trust means to wholly and totally give away all your money to... your spendthrift son and greedy daughter?

Also you have to turn over your assets to someone you trust 5 years before you will be needing Medicaid. That's a real leap of faith - to be living independently, doing just fine, and turn over all your assets forever to someone else.

Finally, the cost of setting up this trust is pretty big. I think it can be $3000 to $5000. So that's a deterrent.

Anonymous wrote:I am new to all this, and reading through this thread trying to make sense of it for our circumstances.

If a senior has few assets — say, only a home, and not an especially valuable one, is it then *especially* important to put assets in trust? The asset/s will never be enough to pay for non-Medicaid care, so individual is likely looking at a Medicaid bed no matter what. But they don’t want to be completely destitute.

For someone like this, it feels like a trust is the difference between Medicaid + destitution vs. Medicaid + some tiny bit of security.

Am I understanding this wrong?

No, you are understanding it just right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he doesn't want to bankrupt your future inheritance to pay for end of life care?

Then he shouldn’t. Take some fentanyl. Why should we have to pay for his care so she can get an inheritance? This is exactly why we save so we don’t end up sharing a room in some nasty welfare facility getting bedsores and abused.

And how does an average elderly person get their hands on fentanyl?

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he doesn't want to bankrupt your future inheritance to pay for end of life care?

Then he shouldn’t. Take some fentanyl. Why should we have to pay for his care so she can get an inheritance? This is exactly why we save so we don’t end up sharing a room in some nasty welfare facility getting bedsores and abused.

Last poster it would be wise to pay for a consultation with an elder are lawyer to get a specific answer based upon the individual circumstance.

I am new to all this, and reading through this thread trying to make sense of it for our circumstances.

If a senior has few assets — say, only a home, and not an especially valuable one, is it then *especially* important to put assets in trust? The asset/s will never be enough to pay for non-Medicaid care, so individual is likely looking at a Medicaid bed no matter what. But they don’t want to be completely destitute.

For someone like this, it feels like a trust is the difference between Medicaid + destitution vs. Medicaid + some tiny bit of security.

Am I understanding this wrong?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he doesn't want to bankrupt your future inheritance to pay for end of life care?

It’s his money. It should be used for his care.

Dp
It’s up to him to decide

Anonymous wrote:Here's info for maryland.

Money Follow the Person

https://health.maryland.gov/mmcp/longtermcare/Pages/Maryland-Money-Follows-the-Person.aspx

If your parent is ever so sick that he needs to live in a nursing home for at least one day, and qualifies for Medicaid, he can use Medicaid to pay for him to be able to live at home

There's also HCBS Waivers

https://health.maryland.gov/mmcp/waiverprograms/pages/home.aspx

I tried this. They offered about 10 hours a month of care.

Anonymous wrote:
He has about 2M that I know of. Your point about the ability to hire aides makes sense. But if you’re in a Medicare bed, doesn’t it look odd that you have 1:1 care?

That's a lot of money. He might not understand what Medicaid planning really entails - it would mean turning all that money over to someone he really trusts. And losing all control over it, forever! Would he even be willing to do that?

Your dad is smart to do this. In many states the Medicaid nursing homes are really good and in some states Medicaid can be used to pay for in-home care. Why would you pay for this stuff yourself when the government can pay for it? Does your dad pay for his doctors out of pocket just because he has the money or does he have Medicare pay for it? I assume he has Medicare pay for it.

This is not putting the government "on the hook" any more than having Medicare pay for heart surgery is putting the government "on the hook." Your dad would be be taking advantage of programs he is legally entitled to. If Congress did not want people doing this, they could extend the lookback period.