Families of elderly patients losing homes to TennCare

WBIR NBC-10 Knoxville ^ | 10/23/6 | SHEILA BURKE

[SauronOfMordor]

My sibs and I are facing this with my parents right now - altho we're not quite at the point where they're institutionalized yet....be it either the current caregivers or "the home", they'll run out of funds - except for their home - in around three years.

You should make an appointment to talk to a financial advisor in the morning

[shankbear]

Then there is a Lady Bird deed. Google that little gem.

[wmfights]

"I think this is quite fair. I'm not willing to have no law on the chance it might be taken too far."
________________________________

We agree on the personal responsibility. Under the current rules, those individuals who can afford to do extensive estate planning get everyone else to pay for them. The lawyers make money. The accountants make money. The guy who loses is the poor schmuck that doesn't have the education, or resources, to do the estate planning, his family ends up with nothing.

[Snoopers-868th]

I think the rub here is that the person who has no house because they maybe rented all their life loses nothing and their care is paid for. It rubs me to a certain degree also (well to a big degree) but when I was young I was told ownin a house was security to be sold to take care of you in old age if need be. I own and solely because I do the monies can be used.

Simple solution: Kids should not put their parents in nursing homes if they want the property. Caring for them no matter what their condition is the price they pay to inherit it.

[brytlea]

If you don't like the current law, work to get it changed.
susie

[zip]

ping

[Gaffer]

I agree totally.....

[GovernmentShrinker]

Trouble is, meeting the current legal standard for "caring for" your parents can easily run into hundreds of thousands of dollars, which most people don't have and/or don't want to blow on a futile exercise in stretching out poor quality of life for much longer than is natural. Most people who tried to "care for" their elderly parents on an out of pocket basis would end up in legal trouble, accused of elder neglect or abuse.

[pepperdog]

Yes, they are not places you would wish to place your loved one. I saw an article in our local paper today about a program in Vermont where the state pays $80 per day to a home (a relative) caregiver. They were saying it was cheaper than the $125 per day they had to pay to a nursing home and the care was much better. I plan to call my LTC guy and ask, if this becomes a common thing throughout the US, will my LTC cover a relative providing care in my (or their) home. It really makes a lot of sense. Many people want to care for their relatives but can't stand the financial hit. Since we (in the form of our government) are going to pay anyway why not get better care for the elderly for less cost if possible.

[WIladyconservative]

I care for my father 24/7. The financial hit is not that big a deal. The emotional hit will knock your socks off.

Medicare or the VA pays for his doctor's appointments, medicines, wheelchair, hospital bed, and most durable goods (oxygen, concentrator, etc.). We have an aid come in every week to help bathe him. Medicare pays for twice a month, if we want 4 times a month we pay the difference which is only $25 a visit.

Today he was assessed and placed on Hospice care. Medicare picks up the tab 100% and it is administered through the VA.

[dennisw]

we got homestead laws in Florida that prevent this

[pepperdog]

God Bless You! I know it is a heavy emotional, as well as physical, burden. In our family we found hospice to be a wonderful resource. I hope you have someone to spell you occasionally, it is very important to look after your own health.

[GovernmentShrinker]

The financial hit is huge. It's just that you're not paying it. Though if you're physically capable of caring for him 24/7, then you are capable of full time employment, and are taking the financial hit of foregoing that -- something that people with children to support at the same time usually can't do. Under the type of scheme outlined in this article, the government can subsequently raid your father's estate to recoup as much of its expenses as the estate is worth. Meanwhile, your father would get no choice as to how his estate is being wiped out.

[WIladyconservative]

then you are capable of full time employment, and are taking the financial hit of foregoing that -- something that people with children to support at the same time usually can't do.

Bad assumption on your part.

I'm a stay at-home mom as well as a caregiver. Being a one income family is a choice and takes dedication but can and is done quite a bit.

[goldstategop]

And stealing children's homes is the way to make taxpayers' whole, eh? The bureaucrats forget a family has bankrupted itself to take care of elderly parents. Now they want to throw them out on the streets to fend for themselves.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[goldstategop]

If you mortgaged everything but your home to take care of your folks, yeah let 'em take it too. Its your fault you couldn't afford long-term elder care.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[goldstategop]

But when the state has already taken ALL of your assets, save your home, that justifies taking it too? In traditional bankruptcy cases, a man's clothes, home and car were always exempt from seizure. As a civilized society, we have understood there are limits to how far one can go to satisfy a debt. Depriving one of the means of shelter and existence is inhumane and offends our sense of morality.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[goldstategop]

A lot of parents do that before they get Medicare. By the time they die, in truth everything has already been exhausted. And the debt left can't be fully covered even if the home is seized.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Graybeard58]

If you mortgaged everything but your home to take care of your folks, yeah let 'em take it too. Its your fault you couldn't afford long-term elder care.

Nobody suggested taking homes of the patient's children.

[goldstategop]

Its WRONG to punish heirs for their parents' debt. If the parents did not intend to bequeath their home to their surving children, I have to add I have no moral or legal difficulty with the home being seized to redress Medicare debt. As long as the home is in the parents' name, the state can do that to recover the debt. What it cannot do is go after the kids to satisfy it.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus