Use YOUR Money For Long-Term Care
The following was a letter sent into the Macon Telegraph regarding long-term care and who should pay for it. This guy's ideas about being able to keep assets, yet look to others to pick up the bill is asinine.
I would like to direct your readers' attentions to an extremely important health issue not often addressed. Regardless of political prejudice or persuasion, long-term care is an issue affecting us all, impacting thousands of families in our area.
There are about 4,000 victims of Alzheimer's disease alone, living in Bibb County and more than 12,500 living in 21 central Georgia counties. The "Georgia Long-Term Care Partnership Program" has been adopted by the General Assembly of Georgia. As part of the "Own Your Future" campaign Gov. Sonny Perdue will send a letter to all Georgia residents between the ages of 45 and 65 encouraging them to plan for long-term care.
The partnership provides that certain assets of a person not be considered when determining Medicaid eligibility if that person is covered by an approved long-term care policy.
This means a person may be able to reduce the cost of their long-term care insurance and qualify for coverage under the state Medicaid program with out first being required to substantially exhaust their resources.
This is especially important since the Deficit Reduction Act which was effective Feb. 8, 2006, will require much tougher standards to qualify for Medicaid.
Thank you for providing a forum for the information our most deserving citizens need to maintain their freedom and dignity and protect their life savings.
Nick Nichols
Macon
The following is my response to his letter....
Nick Nichols letter regarding long-term care left me a bit perplexed about who should pay for services rendered. Here is what I understand his ideas regarding this issue to be. I’ll use an analogy.
Let us say that Nick’s mother has a net worth of $300K including her $200K home. That’s a home worth 200,000 bucks and another $100,000 in assets.
Now let’s say Nick’s mother needs long-term care that cost $40,000 a year.
You would think that she would use her money to pay for the services
she needs over and above what her insurance does not pay for.
So, first she would use her cash to pay the service provider for the food, housing, utilities, medical attention, cable, organized activities, etc. In the example, the cash would pay for about 2 ½ years of service. When her cash ran out, you would think she would liquidate assets for cash in order to pay for the services she wants or needs.
But, Nick seems to think that she should be able to keep things of value -like her house- in order to, I assume be passed to him at her death. So, instead of the house being sold and paying for five more years of services provided to her….the taxpayers pick up the bill so Nick can get his mom’s house. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Beneficiaries of long-term care should be expected and required to use ALL of their assets BEFORE looking to taxpayers in the form of Medicaid to pick up the bill. If you want to inherit your mother’s house, then you buy them long-term care insurance or pay for it out of your pocket, but don’t take money from me.
It seems to me that so many people today, especially baby boomers have squandered their incomes on materialistic crap and or consumable goods and services that have not added any value to their lives whatsoever. Many have little saved and are facing their geriatric years standing at the front door of Wal-Mart or working in the linens department at Macys. So, when faced with the fact that their inheritence could be spent on services to make their parents last years comfortable, they'd rather use government to pay for that, so they can get a house to help subsidize their retirement. That's wrong and if you do this, I hope the house you inherit comes with ghosts that haunt you or at the very least has a cracked foundation.
posted by Troy Tarpley @ 2:57 PM
5 Comments:
trn,
Not knowing your age, I can't tell you if I'm a lot younger than you or not. I can tell you I'm nearly 37.
As far as your hypothetical situations go, I'll tell you I default to liberty and property rights.
The "elderly couple"? You could have just said couple. Or you could have said "old". You chose "elderly", which invokes strong emotion. That's fair. Their condition however is irrelevant in the discussion. NOBODY knows how long we will live. You have to plan. IF your fortunate enough to live 20 years above average, it is still YOUR responsibility, not taxpayers to provide for yourself. If you can't do it, then hopefully your family, church or other charitable organization will help. At least that's the way it should work. Government should not be used as a tool of plunder regardless of how good the intentions are.
If the person in line to inherit is disabled but the elder that had been caring for them dies? Then other family members, church or charity can help. If not, let the person needing care pay for the care. If the person doesn't have the cash, but has the assets...sell some assets for cash to pay for the service.
Is it really that hard to understand? I feel like I'm teaching a 1st grade class here. You don't just take something that belongs to others because you want it.
What if the families have more old than young? What if? Really, you could continue this "what if" till this country is bankrupt. If they have more old than young, than I'd expect they are wiser and have the ability and knowlege to find a solution to their problems.
What if the elderly (there you go again with the elderly) have been scammed of their assets? Well, if a crime has been committed, the law should investigate and prosecute the criminals. If though, the person "scammed" just fell for a sales pitch and forked over their assets voluntarily and left themselves with nothing, they are SOL. I don't mean to sound heartless, but for lack of a better phrase, it's the truth.
If you or I or ANYBODY does something stupid and it cost us money (even all our money), we can't expect someone else to make us whole again. If someone is not mentally capable to handle or control their assets, then power of attorney should be given to someone that is.
Your right, I'm not heartless. I'm as caring and giving as they come. Probably more. Above that though, I recognize property rights and don't think it's right for some citizens to gain possesion of other citizens assets through the use of government force for their want or needs. Charity and welfare should be voluntary. The US gives more than any other country in the world and if changes were made (tort reform, IRS, private education, etc) that allowed us to keep more of what we earned, US citizens would give more and be able to save more.
What you think is fine, but only partly correct. I am young but have run into, seen and been involved in these situations. First hand with my own grandmother. Got the T-shirt.
Nope. Never done most of the things you listed. You could have gone on and on too. Hey, I could start listing hypothetical situations you've never done or will do.
Life comes with hardships. That's the case for everybody. Rich or poor, man or woman, American, Israeli or Irish. That is life and we know bad things happen. So, it's really hard to call the "unexpected". Sure, you may not know it's going to be alzheimer's when cancer is what runs in your family. But, you know bad things happen to everybody.
So, what I think I'm getting from you is that, because bad things happen to everybody, everybody should be expected or required to pitch in and help everybody else. Sounds like socialism to me. Ohhhh. Only help the ones you or someone else deems needy enough? Like the little old lady with a paid for house worth $125,000. What, her 45 yr old son the plumber and her daughter married to the logistics manager at the freight company can't sacrifice? OH, you expect me, my neighbors and other tax payers to sacrifice some of our income to help her.
This is "our" income that we could use to help our own families. Or save. Or spend. Or give volutarily. IT'S OURS! And when you multiply that one little old lady by thousands, then add in the 27 yr old that wrecked his motorcycle without a helmet and is now in a coma and needs permanent care, but had no insurance and aaaaaall the other situations and people....It's incredible.
You take care of you and yours and let everyone else take care of themselves. Again, this is not what government was established for. It's not right to take other peoples property by force for the sake of income redistribution or welfare, which is what your saying we should do. PERIOD.
Sorry for the swollen testes and the gout and the weak bladder. All these things are normal in aging. People are at the hospital everyday in every city with these problems. They should be individual or family problems though. Need help? Ask your church.
Please tell me, in one sentence, what your point is. Mine is…it’s not right to take property from someone else, directly or indirectly, for your or anyone else’s use. Pretty simple and it has nothing to do with your life experiences. My point is correct and I find it interesting that you “hate to see me out in a public forum expressing those ideas” when I do not have all the life experience you have. My life experience verses yours has nothing to do with this discussion. There are people many years your senior that understand and agree with my point. They have much more “life experience” than you or I. Likewise, children with very little “life experience” understand this concept.
I’ve not “spoken down” to anyone one nor have I claimed to be better than anyone. Not until now. This is way off topic, but I do believe some people are better than others. That being said, I believe I am better than some people and some people are better than me. Again, it’s another conversation, but I’d be glad to elaborate. Nonetheless, I’ve not spoken down to anyone, including you. I am blunt and sarcastic, but that’s my blogging style and you signed up for this trip.
I’ve read and posted to your blog and see that you too are quite passionate and confrontational. You are also very passive aggressive. Politely chastising and argumentative. Example: “Be more careful when you shoot your mouth off.” Such a forceful command! Easy trigger. If you don’t enjoy my blog don’t read it, but understand…I don’t appreciate being told, ordered or instructed on how to behave, type, conduct myself, etc. Regarding your last sentence in the above post…I’VE got no battle! It’s a battle we Americans share and YOU KNOW I’m not fighting it alone. I think that’s what gets you so riled up.
Another example of your passive aggressiveness is the last three words of your post…”your little lonesome”. Condescending, but very transparent.
(Here is a copy of the above comment that was removed by trn for unknown reasons. All comments posted here also come directly to my email, which is where I copied and reposted the following.)
trn says,
"You state: "There are people many years your senior that understand and agree with my point" but I have not told you my age. And subsequently, how could you draw this conclusion? Your willingness to jump to conclusions without knowing the facts is one of the reasons I don't like having you on my side of an issue.
Why don't you read again what we have both written and think about it for awhile. Then perhaps you'll be able to figure out what my point is without needing me to spoonfeed it to you."
I don't have to know your age, to know that there are many people that are years your senior. Unless your in your late eighties, I can safely say that. Why, because there are many people older than late eighties in this country. Besides, your constantly blogging on my blog site and who knows how many others. It's a safe assumption that your not an older senior citizen.
I've not "jumped" to any conclusions. I can say with confidence that many people agree with me because they agree openly in public forums like the newspapers across the country, television, radio, other print, the internet, etc. That is how I can not just assume or draw a conclusion, but safely state factualy that many people agree with me that it is wrong to take property from others for your benefit.
I stated my point in one short sentence. I asked you to do the same, but you ignored that and chose to write several sentences of petty insignifigance. You chose to take something minor and unimportant from my previous post and focus on it as if it were an issue to be debated or discussed. Still ignoring the request for a simple one sentence point.
Sounds like you've forgotten the topic or can't make a clear concise point and instead want to delegate responsibility to someone else.
ONE SENTENCE. Come on...you can do it.
Post a Comment
<< Home