Tell me what you think...

[Carlene 12]

Okay, boys and girls....I would like to have as much input here as you can spare.

This is the deal.

As I have mentioned before my MIL lives with me. She will be 87 in the spring. She's in great shape for 87, but she won't live forever, obviously.

My husband has one brother (in another state). Recently we met up with their cousin N (reunion) whose mom was Aunt Louise. Aunt Louise died a couple of years ago. She was about the same age as my MIL. Cousin N is a retired high school principal (CA district) and her pension is 101% of her salary. Her husband just started drawing his SS because he wanted to wait until he could collect full benefits. They have a very nice income, which I do not begrudge them.

Cousin N mentioned to my DH and my BIL that they needed to "get on the stick" and start disposing of their mom's money, meaning pay it out to themselves, have her sign over property, etc. Otherwise, she said, Medicaid would not pay for extended care when the time comes. She said there is a 3 year "look back" period (I think it's 5 in Texas). That means she can't go into long term care at the government's expense until all her money has been gone for 3 years.

Cousin L and her sister had their mom give them all her worldly goods while she still lived in her home. They paid a Mexican woman $50 per day to take care of her, 24 hours a day, 6 days a week for the last year or so. When the look back period was up, they declared her indigent and put her in a nursing home at Medicaid's expense.

My BIL was horrified. He considers this to be unethical, immoral, and fraudulent. I agree with him. My DH is straddling the fence.

My MIL has about $400,000 in assets. Her income is not shabby - about $2000 per month. She has nursing home insurance that will pay $45 per day. My BIL and I think that when the time comes, we should put her in a nice home and use whatever of HER money is necessary to pay the bills. Whatever is left, the boys can split when she dies. It will not be necessary to apply for Medicaid at all.

Cousin N's feelings have been very wounded as a result of my BIL's indictment of her (at least that's what she calls it). Her argument is why should the government get her mom's house/money and leave nothing for her kids. Lots of other people, who never owned property or saved a dime, are living in extended care on Medicaid. She says it's not fair for her to pay and them not to.

My MIL, by the way, is all for this scheme.

[TruBlueSue 0]

You know Carlene, when I first read this I was like "oh,yeah - get them to pay for it - she's been in the system paying her own way forever!" then I thought about it. I may have this situation to look forward to, and I'm sure MY mother would not be up for it AT ALL. However, if your MIL is of sound mind, and concurs, then why not at LEAST investigate what the perameters of the law (e.g., when exactly is the look-back, etc.) state? You don't have to end up doing anything; maybe your MIL will decide she doesn't like the idea or would rather stay in your home or have hospice (G-d forbid, when and if that time comes)...guess what I've spent a lot of space on is ask MIL what she thinks, and then with that in mind, proceed cautiously with a plan you all can agree on. I know this prob doesn't help since I'm SURE that's what you'd have done anyway...

<grin> What a wonderful mitzvah you guys are performing, honoring your husband's mother like you are by having her with you...you will merit the world to come, as my rabbi says!

[Sunta 4]

I think Medicaid is supposed to be for poor people who can't afford their own self-care. If someone has money for self-care, then that is the money that should be used. Well-off people who further strain an already strained system are really contributing to a growing problem. The children who want all the extra money are being selfish in my opinion. It basically would be like a young person hiding their assets and then going on welfare. I don't see the difference just because the person is old. I also don't see how the government is "getting thier money" when they would be using the mother's money to pay for the mother's care. How is the government getting the money?

[sallyjo 0]

Carlene, I had a similiar situation with my mother. Will tell you the reason I let medcaid finish paying her care. My Mom was not left with that much after the six step-childern finished with my step-fathers estate but anyway she drew right at a thousand a month S.S. So I took part of her cash and paid for all funeral arrangements ahead of time and gave her home with her consent to my sister and put the rest away for future care of her which am I so thankful I did. I could tell she was taking that dreadful thing called alsheimers and a year and a half before she died she had colon cancer. I took her out of the nursing home and brought her home with me. It took 24 hour care for her and it was'nt cheap.I also had to hire a private nurse for her while she was still at the nursing home after her colon surgery until she was able for me to take her out. Yes I am so glad I handled her money the way I did because private nurses and good help are not cheap. You just never know what may happen to them or to us as far as that goes.My mother was 80 when it happened to her.

Good luck on yall's decision but yes its okay if you need to do it this way.

[barbara465 2]

I had two separate friends that did this. One had her house completely redone, etc. etc. When the 2 years was up (Texas) they put the MIL in a nursing home. She had been living with them.

The second one took all the money and did whatever. The MIL was already in assisted living so they used the money for her care, but took lots for themselves.

In both cases they were only children. They let the government pick up a big portion of the bill.

Money we save for our old age should be used that way. Those that can pay for care should and the government should help those that can't. There should be some reasoning used in this decision, but it does come down to a moral one.

It does seem wasteful to watch money that could be used for other purposes be bled away for care. If the same level of care can be given and the federal governent pays isn't that tempting.

Its a hard decision. I'm not sure what I would do if given that situation.

[anonemouse 1]

Personally, I would put her in a very nice, comfortable home where she could possibly even get her own room or suite. We all know that many of the homes that are government subsidized are not that great. When I was in high school, I took a class that let us observe nurses a couple hours a day for several days a week. One of the places I was assigned to was a lower-end nursing home. Believe me, it was an eye-opener. I know that many nurses weren't like the ones I was assigned to, but I think you are more likely to have abusive or borderline-abusive nurses and assistants at lower-end homes, and that is where the government will stick the "indigent" old people. They won't pay for the expensive ones.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

There is a legal way to do it and an illegal way.

They actually have a lawyers that specialize in distributing the money to family in a legal and orderly way while the person is still alive and allows the Medicaid regulations to be complied with.

We live in a place that is controlled by law whether we would have passed that law or not. As long as one plays by the rules they shouldn't have a problem unless they consider the rules so immoral as to be below them. However, other people even with more financial resourses will hire lawyers and use the rules to their best advantage.

[GayleTX 1]

We are in the exact situation right now with both our mothers. They are 90 and 97. We take care of one in our home, the other in the nursing home. My mother signed over her farm to us because it's a 3 generation homestead that she feared losing to the government. His mother still has land but enough money that losing the land shouldn't be a threat. They are both paying their own expenses.

There has been discussion among my MIL's heirs as to doing what your relatives are suggesting. They are not in need of the money and are not greedy, but their reasoning is.....their folks have paid huge taxes all their lives and are now paying a huge nursing home bill ---and that money subsidises the people in the next room who never paid taxes or contributed anything to the economics of the country. Their reasoning is "it's her time to get something in return."

I understand that to some extent. I also know that for the past 30 years Medicare has paid a huge amount of money for her and her late husband's medical bills....probably more than they ever paid in in taxes back in their day. The 'give and take' is just not that simple in the USA economics.

I know that 87 sounds old but she could live another 15 years....that money may not look like so much 15 years from now! Would they be satisfied with her 'gifting' them with the amount allowed by the IRS every year rather than just handing it over in a lump sum? That would let them have some of their inheritance to make their own retirement a little easier but would still protect their mother.

There are no easy answers. I wish you all well.

[Elisabethsew 50]

I think you and your husband need to see an elder care lawyer. They specialize in this type of "family business" and can best address the needs of your MIL.

[Carlene 12]

Would they be satisfied with her 'gifting' them with the amount allowed by the IRS every year rather than just handing it over in a lump sum? That would let them have some of their inheritance to make their own retirement a little easier but would still protect their mother.

There are no easy answers. I wish you all well.

We will keep my MIL with us as long as we can. My brother-in-law does not want any of his mom's money while she is alive. He wants to pay her way with her income and nursing home insurance, plus whatever it takes from her principle. He estimates $1000-$1500 per month from her assets to keep her in a nice place. There would still be money left for "her boys" after she died - just not as much.

My MIL tells them ("the boys") to spend the money. She doesn't care on what, as long as the government doesn't get it. My BIL pretty much discounts her input. He thinks she's less than competent.

I'm wondering....with an income of $2000 per month, will she still qualify for Medicaid, even after her assets are depleted? That seems like a pretty high income to get assistance, plus she will have $1350 per month from the long term care insurance. Will that ($3350 per month) pay for a decent nursing home? What do the reallynice ones cost?

[~Jules~ 0]

I'm wondering....with an income of $2000 per month, will she still qualify for Medicaid, even after her assets are depleted? That seems like a pretty high income to get assistance, plus she will have $1350 per month from the long term care insurance. Will that ($3350 per month) pay for a decent nursing home? What do the reallynice ones cost?

Carlene,

It may not be enough, but the govt. will subsidize it.

I had an aunt that had to pay something like $1000 a day for her care until her money was gone. She also had a little bit of income. She was "allowed" like $200 a month and they took everything else for her care. The govt. then paid the rest. Does that make sense?

When she died, the only thing she had left was her house. They let her keep it if family lived in it. They would have liquidated that too if they had rented it out.

She and my uncle both went downhill really fast and it drained them of all the money they had. It was really ok because they didn't have any children and their money was for them. There were a few of the family members that were bent out of shape, but I bet they got over it.

I don't envy your situation at all. Good luck to you and your dh.

[DrewsLou 3]

That seems like too high of an income to qualify for Medicaid... at least in my state anyway!

[Wheetsin 714]

This is a tough one, Carlene. My mother works very closely with income aid programs, and as much as she's "for" them, I tend to straddle the fence. I don't necessarily think that just because you worked hard and saved for your retirement, you should have to pay for your own care - especially when someone who doesn't work hard and doesn't save can get theirs for free. Less of it, probably, but none the less.

I do believe that if some people are going to get aid, all should. So sometimes it might be best if none did.

I do not believe that surviving relatives should be concerned with "getting something" out of a relative's death. Perhaps it's not intentional, but as I read your story, I tend to think the ILs are being greedy. Kind of like, "The less we spend on her, the more we get for ourselves." I hate seeing people think of death as a way to profit.

[cindy110 0]

do the right thing, The government dont care about our parents nor us when we reach that age...I love america but damn some of the laws are for the wealthy not the poor....just enjoy your parents while you can...

[Carlene 12]

I don't necessarily think that just because you worked hard and saved for your retirement, you should have to pay for your own care - especially when someone who doesn't work hard and doesn't save can get theirs for free.

I've been really surprised by my in-laws who seem to think that getting Medicaid to pay for the care of their elderly parents is somehow more noble than the single mom who tries to get her kids on public assistance.

They are very careful not to refer to their parents' benefits as "welfare", though that's exactly what it is.

If everyone should get free elder care, regardless of how much money he/she has in the bank, why shouldn't families (especially low-income families) get free medical care? How about free child care? Does the government owe old, rich people more than it owes poor children?

I'm very curious about what I perceive as a double standard.