seniors losing homes becuase of medicare bills

[historian]

compassionate my rear end!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040415/ap_on_he_me/death_liens

[SoCalDem]

1. Seniors with reliable and loving children

should "sell" their homes to them BEFORE they become infirm.. I think there is a 4 year "window".. I have friends who have done this. The parents then pay "rent" to the kids.. The kids would get the house anyway, so why not do the "paperwork" early.. My friend and his brothers each took out seconds on their homes at very low interest to "buy" their parents' house. Their parents, pay them "rent" which is deposited into an account that they are also signatories to, so they don't lose out.. On paper they are not worth a lot, and the inheritance stuff is already taken care of because the kids already "own" it.. They get the deduction, and they have the peace of mind knowing that their parents' home will never be taken from them, since technically, they don;t own it anymore.

[Cleita]

4. Well, my house and property already belong to my stepdaughter

but I do have assets that I will be deriving income from so I can pay them rent. If I have to spend those down after my husband passes away, I am not going to be able to pay rent or much of anything then. Also, my stepdaughter and her husband have plans to take a reverse mortgage on their property after they retire. How will this affect them? I think it's such a highway robbery of seniors.

[Kanary]

2. Actually, the article is about Medicaid, not Medicare

If we had Universal Single Payer Health Care, we wouldn't have these problems.

Kanary

[Cleita]

3. Yes, seniors wouldn't have to play games so

they have a place to live. Single payer would take care of everyone, not just seniors. This is what the prescription drug benefit is going to do for us. We have to spend all our assets or give them to our children, then we can qualify for it. It seems to me like a real cool Repuke way of avoiding inheritance taxes too. I'm not talking about the middle class here who will not benefit at all but very rich billionaires.

I suppose if you don't have any kids you can trust, you are up shit's creek without a paddle.

[CoolerKing]

5. isn't your title misleading?

I read this article this morning and I thought the liens put on the homes by the state of Nevada weren't being used to take homes away from people, only to recoup costs once people passed away (i.e., when the estate sells the home, the state, as lien-holder, gets some money back). I'm not say this isn't absolutely horrible, but I don't think anybody is being kicked out of their homes. But I could be wrong...it wouldn't be the first time!

(ok, I re-read the article. No one is getting kicked out of their home: "Justices ruled that surviving spouses can remain in their homes as long as they live, but put the state first in line to recover its costs when they die." It's bad, but not as bad as people being forced out over these liens.)

My parents recently finished building their retirement home, but it's technically mine...they put it in my name. My stepfather's father had a severe stroke a couple of years ago and all of his assets had to be sold off to cover medical bills. He's still alive but living in an assisted living facility and Medicare is paying for it, but that only kicked in once his assets (two homes, cars, savings, stocks, etc) were used up. So to keep their assets in our family, they are putting their most valuable property (their new home) in my name. It's a shame people have to do that but it's reality. But smart estate planning goes a long in this day and age.