"100% of people who do not save money do not have any!"--Dave Ramsey

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I've ran into an interesting situation here in Colorado. Taking care of my elderly parents, we've received letters saying that since they are on Medicaid and Medicare, their "estate" will become available for the government for reimbursement of any and all medical expenses that have been incurred by them and paid for by Medicaid. So it looks like that means no inheretance.

It also would seem to suggest that if I end up in the same situation, then paying some 50% of income for a condo that I will finally have paid off at the age of 80 will also probably not be of any worth as an inheritance for my children.

Not that it isn't good to pay for things when you have the means to do so. But it does make owning a house less appealing, at least here where my family lives.

When my parents pass away I will then look into whether it would make sense to buy a house somewhere else.

As I understand, medicare pays 80%. I'm not up to speed on what insurance premiums would cost for the other 20%, but it might not be absurdly expensive. An advanced directive is crucial for understanding the medical wishes of others. Low probability of survival and low probability of high quality of life are particularly important to discuss because that's where a bulk of medical expenses can accrue; slightly delaying the inevitable and miserable demise.

My grandfather died after 2 weeks in the ICU, when the ventilator was removed. I regret allowing the vent in the first place, because he wouldn't have wanted it. I also regret that he died as a result of going to the hospital and subsequently contracting c. diff; a disease basically only contracted in a hospital. Wish he could have gone a couple more years and witnessed grandchildren as confirmation of his legacy. Wish his dream of touring Europe would have occurred (he had plenty of money to accomplish it).

Old people go to the hospital to die as broke individuals.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I've ran into an interesting situation here in Colorado. Taking care of my elderly parents, we've received letters saying that since they are on Medicaid and Medicare, their "estate" will become available for the government for reimbursement of any and all medical expenses that have been incurred by them and paid for by Medicaid. So it looks like that means no inheretance.

It also would seem to suggest that if I end up in the same situation, then paying some 50% of income for a condo that I will finally have paid off at the age of 80 will also probably not be of any worth as an inheritance for my children.

Not that it isn't good to pay for things when you have the means to do so. But it does make owning a house less appealing, at least here where my family lives.

When my parents pass away I will then look into whether it would make sense to buy a house somewhere else.

Medicare and Medicaid are two different things. Medicare is for seniors while Medicaid is for the poor. Medicare makes no claims on estates.

For a senior to receive Medicaid they have to declare themselves poor enough to not be able to pay their medical bills. Once that happens Medicaid takes over payments AND keeps track of the amount spent on that senior's medical care. Once they pass - Medicaid looks to recoup money spent from any estate. Basically Medicaid is the first to "inherit" any money from the estate but they can only collect up to what they actually spent. It isn't an all or nothing situation like many people think.

Which makes complete sense. Someone can't say they are too poor to pay their medical bills when they are alive and then turn around and give away their money once they die.

Now there are ways around this but they take estate planning in advance. For example both my grandmother and aunt created living trusts to protect their home in case they had to go on Medicaid. (The trust technically owned the house instead of them but they were allowed to live in it) Neither ended up needing that provision. My grandmother passed suddenly and my Aunt died of Parkinson's related illness before she burned through her savings. My aunt was close though - she had funds for about another 9 months of full time in-home care before we would have had to sell the house and place her in a nursing home.

EDIT: Also if you are actually taking care of your parents instead of hiring someone or in addition to hiring someone you should be getting paid out of the estate at the going market rate. That is what my aunt did. My father cared for her 4 days out of the week and then she paid an in-home health aid for the other 3 days of the week. (He for real stayed with her 24 hours a day and did the same role as the hired aid) It was all above board with 1099's filed and the income recorded and taxes paid.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by JSH

Which makes complete sense. Someone can't say they are too poor to pay their medical bills and then turn around and give away their money.

Very true, and I agree totally.

But I also find it very ironic that we (immediate family, not talking about my parents) also qualify for Medicaid, and so at the same time we qualify for "affordable housing" to purchase. But if I make more so we no longer qualify for Medicaid, then we no longer qualify for "affordable housing", meaning a mortgage would still be 50% of income, only this time I'd have to be working two jobs to pull it off.

I could get insurance and use that instead of Medicaid, but that also means we wouldn't get any help from the Affordable Healthcare Act and would have to pay it in it's entirety without any tax credits.

What is the point of selling property to people who don't qualify to let their childeren inherit it?

Obviously, it doesn't seem like a given they will take it all, but it could very well happen.

If I or anyone gets any inheritance, great. If not, that's what we're expecting. When my parents die I'll just have to see if it makes more sense to go somewhere else and buy property. I don't see it making sense here. Well, unless I look at it as a way to make sure I can pay for living in a nursing home when the wife and I get to that age.

[Xist]

I am hoping to graduate as an SLP when I am 46. Nobody deserves anything and I don't owe anything to people in a worse situation than me, but I hope to help people have an easier time than me.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I also find it very ironic that we (immediate family, not talking about my parents) also qualify for Medicaid, and so at the same time we qualify for "affordable housing" to purchase. But if I make more so we no longer qualify for Medicaid, then we no longer qualify for "affordable housing", meaning a mortgage would still be 50% of income, only this time I'd have to be working two jobs to pull it off.

You've described several dysfunctions of our current system. Government should NEVER have a program that creates any disincentive to work or to earn more. This is among the stronger cases for something like UBI; that everyone gets it, but the incentive to earn more remains. It's also an argument for single payer health insurance, or universal basic healthcare.

A system encouraging people to be as rich as they can while still qualifying as poor is very dumb, and should never have been considered by a single other person with the ability to reason.

If I or anyone gets any inheritance, great. If not, that's what we're expecting.

That expectation seems best to me. I never knew until just recently what my inheritance would be (from my grandparents), but my plans never involved getting anything. While my grandfather was alive, I always suggested he spend the money he earned, because he earned it.

My parents would have nothing to leave except that which they were given or inherited.

I will set the expectation to my children that they will inherit nothing, and let them be pleasantly surprised when I die.

[Xist]

People ranted about how much pandemic unemployment paid, which officially ended on September 6, 2021, but I worked just enough to not qualify, and when I mentioned it people yelled at me.

Why was it all or nothing?

As I recall, I needed to earn $230 or less in order to qualify for $830.

It is like when people talk about student loan forgiveness and I say that I wish that I received something for paying off mine as fast as possible.

They always yell at me.

I am not saying that I deserve however many tens of thousands I paid off (each time I graduated I owed at least $40,000).

I would be happy if someone bought me nice tacos, just something, some token.

Why couldn't I receive $45 if I made $235 and bring home a whopping $280 a week when apparently everyone was struggling?

I could have made 3.6 times as much if I made excuses for not working!

By the way, we were approved for the house, so now I need to sign up for utilities and everything.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Xist

I am not saying that I deserve however many tens of thousands I paid off (each time I graduated I owed at least $40,000).

I would be happy if someone bought me nice tacos, just something, some token.

The reward for wise investing are the results, not political pandering. The flip side is that the consequences of unwise investing are also the results.

Why couldn't I receive $45 if I made $235 and bring home a whopping $280 a week when apparently everyone was struggling?

Because we insist on having morons come up "solutions" to problems.

[freebeard]

and when I mentioned it people yelled at me.
....
They always yell at me.

At least they don't ignore you like they do me.

When the government sent me money, I used it all to fortify my Second Amendment postiion.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

You've described several dysfunctions of our current system. Government should NEVER have a program that creates any disincentive to work or to earn more.

I believe there needs to be balance. Like I said, there is an incentive to work more: two fulltime jobs, buy a $500-$700 house, and disqualify for Medicaid so I can pay for my own health insurance. That way I can have a home that will be my childrens' inheritance or available to me as equity for when I need it. But there's not much of a reason living close to parents or having children if the only place I am at is work. I think one fulltime job is enough.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

I believe there needs to be balance. Like I said, there is an incentive to work more: two fulltime jobs, buy a $500-$700 house, and disqualify for Medicaid so I can pay for my own health insurance. That way I can have a home that will be my childrens' inheritance or available to me as equity for when I need it. But there's not much of a reason living close to parents or having children if the only place I am at is work. I think one fulltime job is enough.

I was probably holding Xist's comment in mind simultaneous to responding to you. There should never be a program in which someone benefits financially by deciding to go from full-time work, to part-time, or from some work to no work. Xist gave an example of how he'd have been better off working less, meaning our elected leaders didn't spend the 3 extra seconds of thinking necessary to formulate a better plan.