Medicaid Asset Protection Planning

[ShyCat]

Medicaid is supposed to be taxpayer-funded welfare for indigent patients, not greedy heirs.

 

[single317dad]

Properly planning an estate so that the family inherits what the parents intended, and the government doesn't take a huge chunk of it when Mom dies? I'm all for that.

Hiding the assets of a wealthy old lady so she can live on welfare when she can CLEARLY afford to pay for her own care? Nope.

Get the aid she's entitled to. The VA aid is legit. Stop trying to game the system.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Hiding the assets of a wealthy old lady so she can live on welfare when she can CLEARLY afford to pay for her own care? Nope.

The same argument could be made for excluding children of rich people from public schools, when they can CLEARLY afford private schools.

The government makes rules to decide who may and may not benefit from publicly funded programs. If she meets the criteria, she can receive the benefits.

If the rules are wrong, change the rules. Don't expect people to stand by and spend hundreds of thousands on something for which the government has expressed a willingness to pay.

 

[LdiJ]

The same argument could be made for excluding children of rich people from public schools, when they can CLEARLY afford private schools.

The government makes rules to decide who may and may not benefit from publicly funded programs. If she meets the criteria, she can receive the benefits.

If the rules are wrong, change the rules. Don't expect people to stand by and spend hundreds of thousands on something for which the government has expressed a willingness to pay.

Except that the government isn't all that willing to pay, which is why the look back rules changed from a 2 year look back to a 5 year look back. People are far less likely to know that they are going to need nursing home care 5 years in advance than 2 years in advance, and are less likely to give up control of their assets.

 

[ecmst12]

The schools argument is bogus. Public school access is for everyone, it's not need-based. Medicaid is need-based.

 

[single317dad]

Public schools are also for the benefit of all, hence the old saying "it's cheaper to pay for his education now than to pay for his incarceration later." Paying for grandma's nursing while the kids sit on a pile of her money does not benefit society.

When rich people do this, we call it "asset protection planning." When poor people do it, we call it fraud.

 

[Just Blue]

The same argument could be made for excluding children of rich people from public schools, when they can CLEARLY afford private schools.

The government makes rules to decide who may and may not benefit from publicly funded programs. If she meets the criteria, she can receive the benefits.

If the rules are wrong, change the rules. Don't expect people to stand by and spend hundreds of thousands on something for which the government has expressed a willingness to pay.

Steve, I actually agree with you much of the time...But on this? Not a bit. To compare hiding assets for a 90 year old and PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION for ALL children is...odd. IMHO>

 

[commentator]

If you do not have much money, and you want to plan wisely for your senior years, the time to do it is when you're in your 60's and 70's. If you have a very small amount of assets, and you fear you may end up with a serious condition such as Alzheimer's that will deplete your assets and cause you to have to have long term care that would totally wipe you out financially, maybe you'll want to begin giving your assets to your children.

You'll have to risk it that anything that happens to you, if you gave away that money or property less than five years ago, after you've depleted everything you own now, and they start thinking of putting you on Medicaid, the Medicaid system would do a "look back" and would require that the relative value of whatever that asset was be used to pay for your care before they qualified you for Medicaid. And if this man's mother had done that in her 70's or even in her 80's, he'd have the assets now, and she'd have a small amount of stuff, and if she were to become very ill and stay that way for a long period of time (longer than Medicare would pay for her care) then she'd pass smoothly over to Medicaid.

But to suddenly jump up, when Mother is 90, and decide you want to do something that would cover her and so that a nursing home would not get all her money is just stupid. And no amount of contriving about something that might happen is going to be worth paying out big bucks to some estate planner at this age and stage in her life. Most people who are 90 are not looking at 5 more years of any kind with any great optimism. Most people this elderly are not anticipating a long debilitating stay in a long term care facility which will suck away all the estate's assets. Usually the "super old" tend to drop rather quickly when they do have a debilitating health crisis.

If I was a sixty or seventy year old who has had several health scares, or whose parents and relatives have tended to come down with early dementia, I might think long and hard about putting some assets in trust for my heirs as well as purchasing some long term health care insurance.

If I were a 90 year old, even one with great health and a family history of longevity, I think I'd probably chance it that I'm not going to need too much or too expensive a long term care jaunt and that my son will still inherit plenty, even if I have had to pay my own medical bills.

Nursing homes LOVE Medicaid, don't let them fool you. They are the greatest users of this government benefit. It's not the individuals who are sucking away this government money paid for by the taxpayers, it's the long term health care facilities. If we cancelled this one, it's amazing how many new ways we'd find to care for long term illness.

 

[tranquility]

See, I don't see this as how deciding how much the OP (and OP's mom) needs to give the government. This isn't inheritance tax. I actually see this as the opposite; how much can the OP milk FROM the government without paying for mom's care, and keep as much of that for himself. With the state of our economy as it is now, I don't think that those who have the means to care for themselves should be depending upon the taxpayers to pay for them. Period.

Tranquility, I respect your opinion in all matters, I just see this one situation differently than you do.

Yet, by any reasonable measure, it is the same. I understand the issue you think there. I considered writing about it in my answer. It is just describing the facts would take more time than appropriate for the forum.

You get specific advantage from the government. I will not go into it, but some things specifically benefit you. Maybe not; but those are few. You take advantage of certain tax "loopholes". Still, you gain the advantage. I will not go on as the post will get too long, but, can you not see this/these are just rules arbitrarily designed by monied interests?

These things are well decided for reasonable purposes. If you still think it is different, describe why. I will then give an example you would disagree with with the same "why". Money is money and the rules are arbitrary. The democrats don't want you to see that. They want to hide the ball of who gets the money. But, it all is a game. Those in power want more. When the other side comes in, it is just a new boss over the old. Never give more than required, that is silly. There are many, many steps before we can even dream of fair.

 

[tranquility]

The same argument could be made for excluding children of rich people from public schools, when they can CLEARLY afford private schools.

The government makes rules to decide who may and may not benefit from publicly funded programs. If she meets the criteria, she can receive the benefits.

If the rules are wrong, change the rules. Don't expect people to stand by and spend hundreds of thousands on something for which the government has expressed a willingness to pay.

First and probably only like.

 

[anteater]

First and probably only like.

I could have sworn that you "liked" several of trustuser's posts.

 

[ajkroy]

Yet, by any reasonable measure, it is the same. I understand the issue you think there. I considered writing about it in my answer. It is just describing the facts would take more time than appropriate for the forum.

You get specific advantage from the government. I will not go into it, but some things specifically benefit you. Maybe not; but those are few. You take advantage of certain tax "loopholes". Still, you gain the advantage. I will not go on as the post will get too long, but, can you not see this/these are just rules arbitrarily designed by monied interests?

These things are well decided for reasonable purposes. If you still think it is different, describe why. I will then give an example you would disagree with with the same "why". Money is money and the rules are arbitrary. The democrats don't want you to see that. They want to hide the ball of who gets the money. But, it all is a game. Those in power want more. When the other side comes in, it is just a new boss over the old. Never give more than required, that is silly. There are many, many steps before we can even dream of fair.

I see your point and I don't disagree, though I read a statistic that indicates that I am one of roughly 44% of the country who actually pays taxes (and paid an enormous inheritance tax on what turned out to be very little realized inheritance, unfortunately)...but to be fair, I have also utilized Medicaid and food stamps at one point in my life. I was honest in my application and figured that if I was eligible for the help, then I was one of the people the program was designed for in the first place. And I got my butt off as soon as humanly possible.

I don't think taxes are "fair" here, nor do I expect them to be.

I do think we as a whole need a monumental shift in perspective. Rather than everyone looking out for themselves first and how particular legislation (or lack thereof) benefits them, we need to start looking at how we can take care of our own. If we can't do that, what do we (individually) need to do to make that happen? I saw a video just this week with a woman who had 15 children who was evicted from her apartment because they were over the occupancy level. She looked into the news camera and said with a straight face that "someone needs to be held accountable for these children." She was disgusted that the "government" would just let her be evicted like that, even though community groups were paying her rent and she was getting the max amount of food stamp and welfare benefits.

I don't post often on these boards, but those who know me know that I am a huge proponent of personal responsibility. That is why I wrote what I did to the OP. I see an ever-increasing attitude of entitlement everywhere, and it seems that it is starting from those we elect to represent us.

WE are the government, and I am always shocked that people forget that. It is a reflection of us and our (collective) values.

 

[tranquility]

I could have sworn that you "liked" several of trustuser's posts.

I've liked many posts and said so. I think that was the first one I "liked" as in hitting that button.