Follow
Share
Read More
This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.
2 3 4 5 6
Yes and no. Family a who's scraped and scraped pray for years to save up even the slightest amount of money actually need Medicaid. Family b well spent every dime and live high on the hog is not entitled to Medicaid from your description. I can understand helping other people and sharing with the less fortunate and even providing for your own household. That's different from trying to cheat the system when making too much. I say if family b from trying to cheat the system when making too much. I say if family b was going to go on vacation was going to go on vacation, they should actually invite family a to go along and pay for expenses if they can afford to buy cars for each of their kids. Maybe they should also buy cars for the needy people in family a since they're rich
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

There is a difference between immoral, unethical, and illegal. Morality is your own personal standard -- your religious feelings, your unwillingness to steal even a pencil from our employer, or grab for deductions on your income tax. Unethical is cheating your neighbor, not treating them as you want to be treated. Illegal is breaking the laws of the land, even if you think they are strange or -- gasp -- unethical.

I am in a quandary myself. My husband, because of ill health, had to retire early. He was self employed all his life, we could not afford health insurance, and his SS was barely $1,000/month where it has remained the same for 20 years. My own self employment, up and down (mostly) netted me $650/month when I retired at 65, though I continued to work because $1650 is not enough to live on in a state where one's utility bills ran well over $500/month. We have a reverse mortgage to make up the difference, and I've been working part time also. I own the business and have tucked away much of what I've made.
However, in about a year, my husband will need full time care of some sort. And I've been told that what is in my business account will have to spent down before he can get aid. Thereby killing the business in because there will be no capital left to invest in anything to do with the business.
I had a friend whose husband died after NH care on Medicaid. She was then forced to sell the house and give 50% of net cash, sell all his tools and anything of value and give 50% back to Medicaid, leaving her with next to nothing to live on. Her kids wouldn't take her in. So she lived her remaining days in subsidized housing.
Now that is where Legal becomes Unethical!
Helpful Answer (3)
Report

Well.

The business account of a sole trader - are you a sole trader? - is a bit of a grey area. Is your business a company, a separate entity from you, or is it just a practical piece of self-organisation that helps you keep your business income and outgoings separate from your domestic ones?

Could you, hypothetically, sell the business as a going concern? This wouldn't prevent your exceeding the Medicaid threshold, of course, because you'd then realise the value of the business in cash terms. But it might help to distinguish between your personal assets and those of your business if it could, theoretically, function without you. Not that I'd know, but it doesn't sound quite right that you could be forced to fold your only source of income - I think you should look into this more carefully with Medicaid, and check that they have taken all the details on board.

The prospect of poverty at the end of a life of hard work, conscientious saving and responsible budgeting seems very scant reward, I agree. But unethical? On whose part? Who is cheating you out of something you're owed? What are you owed, and by whom?
Helpful Answer (0)
Report

Mouse, I have a sole proprietorship real estate brokerage firm. I have one employee. My business savings account pays for all the expense like insurance, advertising, signs, secretarial, etc. unfortunately, ten years ago I put my husband as signor on the account in case something happened to me. That one fact makes the savings account his as well as mine!
My comment about legal vs ethical was about the treatment of my friend, for whom no cnsideration was given when she was forced to sell the house and assets and give 50% back to the govt., leaving her with next to nothing.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

Sadly, no. She was reckoned to own 50% of her and her husband's joint property; and on his decease Medicaid recovered a proportion of what his care had cost the state up to the limit of his 50% share.

I'm surprised to hear that she was forced to sell the house, though. I understood - perhaps wrongly, I'm certainly no expert - that a widowed person occupying the family home would not be required to sell involuntarily. Was she pushed or did she jump? Or could she not afford the upkeep on her inevitably reduced income?

But, so, in any case: who should have paid for the husband's care if not him?

Your husband's (cameo) role in your business shouldn't change the possible distinction between business and personal assets. I'd still check this point carefully - the worst that can happen is that you're no further forward.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

Sorry, just chewing this over while I was moving my seedlings back indoors...

So, essentially you inadvertently made your husband co-owner of the business. Well. Can Medicaid force the closure of a business to realise the asset for the applicant? Especially given that that would mean putting your employee out of work.

Could they require you to "buy him out"? And how would they determine the value of his share? After all this is operating capital, it's not spare cash.

Don't just lie down and take it. There must be some way round.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

Most people apply for Medicaid because they need it. Perhaps they do not like doing it at all. People who have more than plenty should not gripe about lower income people getting help from Medicaid. In fact they should not get $1500 to $2,000 a month SS when they do not need it. SS started as a means to help people in emergencies and those in continual neediness, not for retirement. We give plenty to other countries and to immigrants who come here due to poor conditions in their homelands. I say help out our own people first, "America First" is our slogan now, "The poor will always be with you," (Biblical quote), so we should be prepared to help them!!!! Medicaid Estate Recovery is the same as confiscation in my opinion and the government should be made to stop waste in many many areas so it can use our tax money to actually help real needy people! Also government should educate people about Medicate Estate Recovery when they become seniors, so they can know about it and not be surprised when they are charged $100,000 to pay bills patients are not aware of which seems unlawful. This just happened to my sister-in-law's sister and husband who were confined to a nursing home for several years.
Helpful Answer (4)
Report

Well the way I think about this is that none of us knew how much it "cost being elderly". We were never taught this in school, and unless we witness this first hand with older relatives, most of us don't have the knowledge.

For me, I never knew that Medicaid would pay for all the care for someone who cannot afford a nursing home until I found this website forum. It was an eye opener, but something I was glad was there in case someone outlives their savings. With todays elders living more and more into their 90's and early 100's, that could happen to any one of us.

I know I was in sticker shock head spinning mode when I found out how expensive it was to have caregivers around the clock for my Dad. When one sees $30/hr it doesn't sound all that bad, until you figure the cost for 24 hours, seven days a week. YIKES !!

Another sticker shock was the cost of Independent Living and Assisted Living. Ok, much less expensive then 24 hour caregivers, but still pricey.

I was in panic city regarding myself.... being an only child and never had children... I will need to pay someone to take care of me in my declining years, if I reach that point. I had socked away a healthy amount of savings, but what if *I* outlive my savings?
Helpful Answer (4)
Report

I don't think every person that transfers has that in mind. In my case it is simply a matter of wanting each child to be treated equally and to have the money when they need it which is now for some. There is no indication he will even need Medicaid I just want to understand the what if's
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

I do not think it is immoral to try to shield assets from Medicaid. I do think it is immoral to take the assets the elder needs for their own care...and then not be there to provide all that care yourself.
Helpful Answer (3)
Report

No more immoral than it is for medical to pay inflated costs for baby sitting then have every member of the family that ever got any thing to pay it back!! : ((
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

When our economy is doing well, there are many who also do well, but there are those who for one reason or another are not able to make as much money due to sickness, divorce, choices, businesses closing, poor education, and many other valid reasons. A nation will not do well if it does not take care the lesser blessed. Everyone cannot be wealthy and that makes us wonder about capitalism. BUT if capitalists are moral, they will give back through programs for those who have less. That is the only way, in my opinion, that capitalism will work. A rich country should try to make life better for all. I see Medicaid Estate Recovery as confiscation. Many people live well and do not have to scrimp and save and do without like so many others. Our country should stop giving to those outside until our people are taken care of and I don't mean being put in bad nursing homes and then have their only possession, the old home place that the children love, ripped from them because they are handicapped by age, bad health or otherwise. This is a great moral problem for all countries and we Americans should try to solve it now as we improve our economy before we end up like China's old people who absolutely have nowhere to go. Philanthropy is not the same as socialism. It is caring and helping, employing moral ways to make our country great again. After taking care of our own we should then lead the world in doing the same. Social Security, at first, was only for those in critical need and it and Medicare were not a retirement plans. Bad leadership and bad planning has been a big part of things getting off track. Churches used to be a large part of helping the needy until the government took over, also. We can't get back to that point, but we need to begin making reasonable plans for the future that work to make life livable for all, NOT just for the "better off" people. Class creeps in and separates us, too, due to what we have and own.
Helpful Answer (3)
Report

I 'hid' my folks' hard earned money back in 2014 when my dad had to go into Assisted Living after breaking a hip. Mom had to go with him as well. I cashed out their stocks and put the $400K in my name (after being given financial POA as an only child). Here's the deal: I will pay for my folks' care until their death, using the $400K that is their's to begin with. IF that money runs out, I will apply for Medicaid. Their $400K will definitely last longer than the 5 year look-back period that Medicaid employs. Is that 'immoral' or 'unethical'? I don't know and I don't frankly care. What I DO know is that ALFs and NHs are extraordinarily overpriced, so unless a person has a million dollars or more, they may not be able to live in such a facility for extended years! I took steps in 2014 to prepare for my mother living to be 100 years old, since longevity runs in her family. She's 90 right now, and may well live another 10 years, meaning her money will have run out at 98 years old. Her ALF costs are currently $4,500 a month (Dad died in 2015) and only going UP from there. If Medicaid needs to kick in and she needs to be moved as a result, then so be it. I refuse to feel 'guilty' or 'unethical' since I will have used up every penny the folks' earned honestly and ethically during their working lives. Maybe if the government stepped in and regulated the costs of elder care in general, then we wouldn't need to 'hide assets' or do all the things we NEED to do to keep our loved ones safe and secure in their final years.
Helpful Answer (5)
Report

lealonnie - you are fortunate that your Mom's care expenses are so low. The NH my mother was in (in a small town in Michigan, not even a huge, fancy place) was $7,000-$8,000 per month for a single person on private pay. When she required a private room due to lack of compatible roommates (and no empty double occupancy Medicaid rooms), I had to move her to a private room at my own expense, which meant paying $400+ a month out of my own pocket, over and above her SS income and Medicaid coverage.

I understand there's a difference between ALF and NH, but at least your mom is still able to do just ALF, which affords her some independence.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

Lealonnie1, what you have done is not hiding assets. What many of us think is wrong is when people transfer assets to others and then have Medicaid pay their costs. You plan to use the 400K to provide care for your parents. As long as you exhaust the 400K, you are not hiding anything. I am not sure why you wanted to put all of the money into your accounts, but that is not any different than what I am doing with my mom's money. It is still in her name, but POD to her heirs. If the money runs out, she will need to have Medicaid and the heirs will get nothing.
Helpful Answer (3)
Report

Susan, how sad is it that $4,500 per month is considered cheap?? A nursing home here in Colorado is approximately $8500 per month for a private room/private pay. I am hoping to God that mom will not require a NH. She's on the progressive dementia road right now, but the ALF has a memory care unit if necessary. The costs are about $2000/month more than the ALF rates.

It was kind of you to fork out $400 per month of your own money to keep your mom comfortable in a private room. There is NO WAY my mother would EVER be 'compatible' with a roommate...........LOL.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

AKDaughter, I guess you're right. I forgot to mention that I transferred the folks' money when applying for VA benefits for Dad, as there was no look-back period in force at that time.  After Dad died, Mom continues to receive 1/2 benefits; that, combined with her SSI benefits, enables her to live more than 10 years on her 'nest egg' w/o Medicaid. That's the part that can feel 'unethical' or 'immoral'.......but hey, Dad served his country in WWII and was entitled to a benefit, in my opinion. 

I put their $$$ in my name because I am the one who pays the bills, gets the mail, etc. I didn't know what else TO do with it!! 
Helpful Answer (3)
Report

In 2017 74 million people are on Medicaid. Millions were put on Medicaid when the Affordable Care act went into effect because they could not afford the insurance premiums and would be penalized for not  having insurance. No explanation has been given as to why this was done instead of giving them the stipends. Has this slowed down the application process? Has it affected the benefits available to seniors? What will this do to seniors since we are living so much longer and therefore many more are developing Dementia and all kinds of Alzheimer's that use up all our resources long before we die? Eventually someone is going to have to pay the piper. Then where will this leave us?
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

You do realize that a stipend will never cover even a fraction of medical insurance?

Until we have universal health care, there is no way to control the for profit health care business. Yes...business. There is no reason a doctor in a speciliaty needs to get $1mill a year (I know several that do). There is no reason a business with stock holders should be delivering medical aid to only the wealthy that can pay these outrageous prices!

The vast majority of the worlds developed nations have universal healthcare. AND. .they have control of the costs. AND. Everyone gets the care they need. Yeah..if you want elective surgery you will have to wait in line or pay to go somewhere else to get it. BUT, no one goes without the care they need. Unlike here

We still have millions without access to health care. And..if the GOP get there way..we will have tens of millions more ...probably everyone Mom and Dad..as they all have preexisting conditions that will price them completely out of any insurance at all.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

I am sorry you felt the need to get political about this. I am concerned for those who need assistance will suffer because well over 50% of our population is receiving some sort of assistance. There is just so much that the average taxpayer can afford before our whole system crumbles. I don't know the answer but I do know that something has got to give.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

Katiekate, I hope you haven't been listening too closely to Michael Moore about the NHS. We love it very much. It is very precious to us. It was set up to provide "universal health care from cradle to grave, free at the point of delivery." It is not universal, it does not provide health care from cradle to grave, and it is not free at the point of delivery; it is riddled with perverse incentives, insane inefficiencies and political nonsenses; but we love it all the same. If you break your leg or get cancer - or, for that matter, suffer the misfortune of infertility or gender dysphoria - the NHS will be there, and it will do its best, and you've got as good a chance of surviving as any other poor sod so mustn't grumble, eh. It survives on the stoicism of its patients and the incredible self-sacrifice of roughly half of its staff (the other half being either at home on fully-paid sick leave or in the subsidised canteen feeding its face). And it has just been attacked by this wretched ransom virus, which gives you a classic case in point: those NHS Trusts which fell victim have blamed lack of government funding. But they haven't explained how the other trusts, which were not affected, managed to install the critical MicroSoft patch in spite of having the same budget. It's so predictable: their response to any perceived problem is not to address their own utter uselessness and inept management but to demand more money.

In control of the costs? Are you kidding? You mean they *meant* this shambles to happen?

I'm not sure, but I believe that other large European countries like Germany and France operate insurance-based systems. Don't know about Japan - but based on childish stereotyping I guess that their main health strategy involves people being expected to pull themselves together and show moral fibre. Being ninety in that country is considered no excuse for not running marathons or climbing Mount Fuji.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

I don't know if you learned of the new development of able accounts in the US. Able accounts are designed for people on federal benefits with permanent disabilities. Able accounts help people on fixed incomes be able to save more than just a very low the measly 1500 for Medicaid and 2000 for SSI because the state just doesn't allow you to save enough to cover bigger needs. The current caps keep people impoverished where they can never climb out of poverty. This is where able accounts came into play. These must be the savings accounts that were mentioned by Trump when he was talking about Social Security, Medicaid and something about savings accounts. I don't recall everything but he did say something about special savings accounts for medical expenses Medicare and Medicaid won't cover. Without able accounts, people's needs would be otherwise uncovered and they would go without some things they need. The new able program was restricted to your own state but it's now open to allow people to open able accounts in any state besides their own. You can only have one able account and you have a much higher savings limit.

You are allowed to own one home and if you're only on SSI and happen to be a single person, you can't rent the home, but you must live in it. It's been said that if anything happens to you and you were to die, Medicaid would have claim to the home for the proceeds for recovery purposes. The same goes for your able account, (but the money can very easily be used up before anything happens to you).

With an able account, you're allowed to cover certain qualified expenses including transportation. In Ohio, you can buy a car with the funds, this qualifies under transportation expenses.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

One thing we need to remember is that Medicaid is funding mainly by the States through taxes that us taxpayers pay, with some money coming in from the Federal Government.

Depending how much is coming into each State, the State can either cut programs or enhance programs. I need to keep a watch with the current administration to see what happens to Medicaid as the current passed bill in the U.S. House of Representatives is going to cut Medicaid about $880M. Hopefully the U.S. Senate will cross that off the bill.

Now, I can understand why some families want to hide assets so that Medicaid won't get their hands on it. But it is not fair to us taxpayers who are taking up the slack, and whose parents came from the generation to save for those "rainy days".

What is scary is that the baby boomer's grown children are not doing the same type of savings.... then what? We keep telling them to save, save, save, but it is ignored.... [sigh].
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

I think it's illegal.

I don't worry about who will inherit after I'm gone, I mean - if I can't take it with me, who cares. I only pray to have enough to support myself as long as I live. If the state steps in and takes over my care, I feel they will be entitled to whatever I have - it's not as if anyone else would already be caring for me. If I need the state to take care of my DH, then again, they can have whatever is left after I pass - but I can legally reserve the right to keep my home as long as I live and my IRA is mine alone and no one can legally take it from me. Shared assets? So they get half - they would be earning it as far as I can see. I have been advised that the state will only take enough to reimburse their expenditures; anything left afterwards is returned to the family.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

I really don't understand how anything can be "hidden" within the five year look back. They ask for five years of bank statements and any other assets you have which include insurance policies, bonds, stocks and shares. If these have been "hidden" within the look back, I would think there is a way Medicaid can find this out. Now, if it's done before the five year look back, than it's legal. No, I don't think its right. What money we have has been invested for our care. I plan on being able to afford Independent living or an AL. Medicaid only pays for an AL if you have privately paid, where I live, for two years and then it's iffy. Do I want my children to get my money while I live in in Nursing home under Medicaid, NO. They got what they needed growing up and now hold down jobs they can afford to live relatively comfortably. Their bills get paid. To make sure a spouse is comfortable if one of them ends up in a home, now that you may want to set something up but it has to be before the look back. I had a lawyer tell me that there is something that if one of us is in a coma (lets say) and needs longterm nursing, then the home will revert to the other spouse so Medicaid doesn't get it.
Helpful Answer (2)
Report

We were referred to an eldercare attorney by one of the nicer nursing homes in our area. (They did not have the details on our grandpa's finances, which were that he had none.) The guy's Medicaid assistance package was close to $3K. Anyone who needs Medicaid does not have that kind of money, obviously.

What I've heard through older acquaintances in the know is that the well-to-do types in town start planning about 10 years before they anticipate needing this care. They funnel money around, get themselves onto waitlists at the best assisted living/nursing home facility 10-15 years before they will need it. They must be the ones paying $3000 for Medicaid planning.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

If everyone is equal, then everyone should be entitled to Medicaid - not just the losers. If you have 2 children, and one was a drug addict, robbed you, landed in jail, impregnated women. This son was a lazy, nasty, self-centered man, who never did anything for anyone. The other child got a high college degree and became a doctor who cared for children with cancer. You have a large estate. Do you leave it all to the lazy bum, or does everyone get an equal share? That is do you reward bad character?
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

I do NOT think you should get penalized for Finally getting an inheritance or a lump sum of money from a loved one or a Relative and I do NOT think its Immoral to hide that --- I do think its Immoral to hide it if you make 100k a year and are abusing the system - but if your someone like me who only makes (under 40k a year with 2 people) one is on Disability -- and You NEVER have been on vacation, you barely have enough money to go out to breakfast out - once a month, etc etc, I dont think its fair of Medicaid to take an insurance policy -- but thank you for posting Now Were NOT getting Life Insurance - why bother that would be 80.00 a month for my husband and a 18k policy, and 45.00 a month for me with a 80k policy -- why bother getting him Life insurance? we will get me one, not worth it to get him one -- Anyway -- to answer that question - No in certain circumstances and yes in certain circumstances -- I'm sure you can figure out which is which. -- and I don't mind at all if your the working stiff trying to make ends meet that you hide your assets at all --- sorry --- its just the way I feel.
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

Here is what I think is totally and completely immoral:

Healthcare for profit.

No other developed nation has such an immoral healthcare model. It is shameful that we do.

Correct the underlying immorality and many of the other questions go away.
Helpful Answer (8)
Report

I agree! Jennegibbs
Helpful Answer (1)
Report

2 3 4 5 6
This question has been closed for answers. Ask a New Question.
Ask a Question
Subscribe to
Our Newsletter