Posted on 06/04/2009 8:33:58 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
Did you know you could be responsible for your parents' unpaid bills? Thirty states currently have laws making adult children responsible for their parents if their parents can't afford to take care of themselves. While these laws are rarely enforced, there has been speculation that states may begin dusting them off as a way to save on Medicaid expenses, says SeniorJournal.com.
These laws, called filial responsibility laws, obligate adult children to provide necessities like food, clothing, housing, and medical attention for their indigent parents.
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis:
Twenty-one states allow a civil court action to obtain financial support or cost recovery. Twelve states impose criminal penalties on children who do not support their parents. Three states allow both civil and criminal actions. Generally, most states do not require children to provide care if they do not have the ability to pay. States vary on what factors they consider when determining whether an adult child has the ability to pay. Children may also not be required to support their parents if the parents abandoned them or did not support them.
The passage of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 made it more difficult to qualify for Medicaid, which means there may be more elderly individuals in nursing homes with no ability to pay for care. In response, nursing homes may use the filial responsibility laws as a way to get care paid for, says SeniorJournal.com.
Source: ElderLawAnswers.com, "States May Take New Look at Requiring Adult Children to Pay for Aging Parents; Boomers could get caught by laws already on books in thirty states," SeniorJournal.com, June 3, 2009.
For text:
http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Boomers/2009/20090603-StatesMayTake.htm
For more on State and Local Issues:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=40
An interesting analysis, difficult to argue against.
> I have advice for my children, but it isn’t the kind they want to hear. We should consider living the way our great-grands did, all under one roof, and pooling whatever resources are left after the .gov finishes messing us all up any more.
Not a bad idea. Something surely must be done by somebody. The problem is the same world ‘round — at least in the Western world. It is the same here in NZ. Already cracks are appearing in our “KiwiSaver” scheme which was supposed to fix everything. To say nothing of the “Cullen Fund” (less said quicker mended).
LOL!
I bet you’re right.
That may be well and good, but the government taxed the he** out of people and told them that they would be "taken care of" when they got old, now they are reneging. If they want people off of medicare and medicaid they had better start with the generations that haven't paid into the system for 45 or so years and gradually phase it out. Peopls should take care of themselves granted, but they should be left enough money in order to do that when the get old. SS and Income taxes are designed so that the average working person cannot take care of them selves when they get old because the money they needed to build a retirement went to the government. If that money was taxed for that purpose, it should be used for that purpose. I tell you what, if you give me back, in one tax free lump sum, every thing I ever paid into SS and SDI my whole working life, I will not asked for SS or any other form of Government assistance for the rest of my life. Oh, and give it to me in gold, I don't want worthless paper money since most of the money I earned in my lifetime was on the gold and silver standard, legal tender redeemable for lawful money. Remember that stuff?
Excellent points!
Look, you’re not hardhearted to want to be able to take care of yourself. You planned for it. You’re ready, and you shouldn’t let anyone screw up your game plan.
Mom had every opportunity to take responsibility, and now you shouldn’t feel guilty at all for not taking it for her.
I think you’re right on target with your comments. Look, none of us wants our kids or our parents to have a tough go of it, but as adults, it is/was their responsibility to prepare for their own future.
If dad and mom need help and the kids can without it being a real hardship, I say great. Otherwise, people’s obligations are to their own immediate household first. Otherwise you se in motion a chain reaction hardship.
I’m referencing the adults who didn’t pay into their social security, or spend their 401ks, or put all their eggs in one basket and frittered their savings away.
The government has an obligation to serve the people whose taxes it too.
If there’s anything to be cut, it’s the funds Social Security pays out totally unrelated to the retirements of those who paid into it.
Foreign nationals, people who become disabled... Social security was a minimalist retirement fund, and that’s what it’s mandate should have remained.
No wonder it’s going belly up in time. Where we used to 40 paying to support on person drawing S.S., we now have something like five and headed to one.
Who thought that was going to work. And if the government tries to guilt sons and daughters, they should mention the mismanagement of the fund. (Pipe dream fund that is)
In the short span of time, I agree, DoughtyOne. But, please consider this before singling out a generation for blame.
My children were able to get good summer jobs because they were bright, honest, worked hard, and considered the long term consequences of screwing up.
Because of this, they got a good start on their college applications, earned their way through, worked hard at the eventual opportunities, and therefore, might just be able to care for us in our dotage.
Now, however, certain “personal characteristics” will be penalized, and youngsters like mine will be “left behind”. So, I guess we all should screw up our adult responsibilities to give our kids a chance?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2264866/posts
Does anyone else but me have an “Alice in Wonderland” sense of the future?
There used to be a lot of Jews in Poland.
I say we do everything possible to pay these people back for every damn dime the government has stolen from them in the form of Social Security. We do owe them that. Women who were married to the same man for years and stayed home to raise his children should be given *his* SS if he's passed. ALL of it. Not 50%.
After that - we stop. We stop and allow these adults the right to succeed or fail. If they are decent people, someone in the family will take them in if they need it.
Amen to that. I am a gen-xer and I do believe that we should at least pay back the money taken for SS. Even if the system can't do more, we need to make good on that promise.
Sounds reasonable to me. It might be a trick talking the Chinese into bankrolling it, as the elderly aren’t assets that they can take in security for their loans.
This is where Obama has really screwed up: he’s spent 3 trillion dollars and more, without leaving any funds or line-of-credit for this huge wave of retirements coming thru the pipes.
“Improvident” doesn’t even begin to describe his folly.
Thanks for your kind words.
I’ll always make sure she has
food and what she needs, not what she wants. Lol. About 10 years ago she went out and bought a huge expensive motor home, and she and my late stepfather didn’t even like camping. There are no words
I wish the situation were different, but as Rush says...
it is what is is.
There’s just no way you can manage to take care of all those people.
Maybe there will be local programs that will provide some in home services. I hope for your sake that can happen!
That is an extremely simplistic and naive - as well as false - interpretation of the meaning of the word "romantic." The bare-bones etymology is obviously derived from "Roman," but the meaning of "Romanticism" couldn't be farther from that.
Some consider the Romans modern, some consider them ancient. It all depends on your perspective of history and time.
Get real! ALL academics (with the exception of paleontologists) are in agreement that the Romans did not belong to the "Modern Era." Stop relativizing!
When I speak of convenience in a derogatory manner I speak of the ease with which people step into and out of marriage
Sorry, but the expression "marriage of convenience" already had a set meaning (having nothing to do with easy dissolution) before you co-opted it.
Regards,
Get upset much?
The etymological root of the term romantic comes from a sociological connection to the Roman myths of heroism and theology. There is a strong sociological connection. That is neither simplistic nor naive nor false. In the modern era we equate it most closely with the cupid theory of love being something beyond man’s control.
I didn’t speak of the common phrase ‘marriage of convenience’ - at all. In fact I believe you were the first one to use the term ‘convenience’. Stop twisting my words.
My primary point remains firm - and aside from all the other arguments offered - you haven’t addressed it that I can see. Allow me to reiterate...
The modern notion that marriage is a temporary connection to be entered into and exited from as easily as one might cross a street is destroying our culture from the inside out. Families are the core of the societal structure and one need only look around to see both, families and our society, crumbling before our very eyes.
Take care Duffi. I hear ya. ;-)
I was not the first to use the term "convenience." In fact, my first posting began with a verbatim quote from your posting. Here's the whole paragraph from your posting again:
Yes, of course there are limits - molesters and abusers and the like - but part of the decline of the moral character of America is due to the notion that family is voluntary. Our children don’t listen to stories at Grandpa’s knee, marriages are convenience based, and even siblings are just people we see at Christmas.
Those are your own words. You would do well to review your own postings before accusing someone else of twisting them.
As for your primary point, it contains very much merit, and bears repeating. Marriage as an institution has indeed been degraded by the fact that it is now widely viewed as an agreement into which one can as easily and thoughtless enter as exit.
In my first posting, I merely commented upon what I felt to be a misleading phrasing - that marriages today were "convenience-based," which is awfully similar to the expression "marriage of convenience" referring to the common practice in earlier times of arranging marriages for purely pragmatic reason, e.g., in order to solidify dynasties, keep farmland together, etc.
In the context of your statement that America's decline was due to the notion that "family is voluntary," your wording is especially confusing. Are you suggesting that "family" should be made "involuntary?" (Of course you aren't: I'm merely illustrating how unfortunate your diction is.)
And I stand by my assertion that to associate "Romantic" with "Roman" is etymologically crude and misleading (despite the obvious common root). (Please note that I was criticizing your understanding of etymology - not you personally.)
Get upset much?
In fact, it is a little disheartening to see how quickly some FReepers will stoop to personal attacks. Your rancor is misplaced here. Please save your antagonistic "zingers" for some other forum.
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.