Wellness

[ccassaday]

---

@Evie2004 wrote:

@ccassaday,  our retirement accounts are in both our names, jointly, then we are each the beneficiary, if something happens to one of us. Then our sons are secondary beneficiaries, 50% each, if there is any left after we

BOTH pass.

My husband recently turned 70& 1/2, so we are REQUIRED to take a distribution from our  account..the reason being the government wants their tax money now, as it was a pre-tax investment.

---

That's my point. If anyone has their retirement accounts in just the one spouses name that is dumb. My parents got a financial guy two years ago. My dad removed most of his 401k from work.  Put it into a retirement account with both names on it. When he gets his pension in July he will be taking it in a lump sum and will go into the same retirement account. Why would anyone only have one spouse on the account.

[151949]

When my husband movedhis from his company to Morgan Stanley they told him it had to be his name only because it was his account.Otherwise there would be taxes to pay on the withdrawal.

[violann]

When we started paying, mine cost TWICE the cost of DH, but after losing weight, mine was reduced in cost to ALMOST as low as his.

It pays in cash to be as healthy as you can when you apply. The two major variables are AGE and HEALTH.

[software]

---

@Abrowneyegirl wrote:

---

@software wrote:

I never implied anyone should "hide" assets.   You can legally protect assets.  If a spouse is still living the home, Medicaid will not throw them out to make you sell the house

Medicaid goes back 5 years, if your assets were protected prior to the 5 year window you are good.   The fact your friend has an attorney means she is doing everything by the book

The rules are out there in black & white.  People can choose to live by them or roll the dice & hope for the best.

@Mom2Dogs

---

@software

PROCECT ASSESTS from what?  Being used to pay for your care?  Who else should pay?  

For example, If Mary puts her house is her child's name so she can free-load off the the tax payers is wrong.  No necessarily illegal.  So why work or pay for anything ever, just live off the dole. Why pay for any insurance for anything.

---

I respectfully disagree.   I think it's a very compassionate part of the law.  You work hard all your life to buy a home, pay for it, pay the taxes & insurance, maintain it.   You do it for the next generation.   Your example is extreme.   Everyone posting here has made some kind of arrangements for their future care.   We're not a bunch of slackers, like you imply.

[151949]

There should simply be a better way to take care of our seniors than we currently have.The best available are granny nannies who come to your home to help you but we have all heard stories of them stealing you blind etc. Nursing homes can be nice or a real snake pit, so it is a gamble.I don't think there is any really good solution available today.

[LilacTree]

I would rather crawl into the ocean than go to a nursing home.

[violann]

---

@LilacTree wrote:

I would rather crawl into the ocean than go to a nursing home.

---

I absolutely understand you, but I can say with total honesty thatif I ever needed total care, I would be GLAD to enter the residential facility where my mother spent her last 5 1/2 years.

With that in mind though, it cost almost one million dollars, her entire savings, to pay for her care, but as has been said, it was HER MONEY.

I totally agree that "asset preservation" is, to me, like a type of socially acknowledged theft. Life is full of difficult, painful decisions, and deciding to "save" the assets belonging to a dependent adult to keep them for yourself or other people is lowballing it.