Infrastructure

[barbara]

Oerets, I'm still not sure about your thoughts on protecting assets. I've not heard of "Tax Relief Companies" and had to google that.

At the risk of derailing this thread, Do you mean that people who have a house and other assets shouldn't protect those things should they find themselves needing long term care?

This is why I ask... having worked with the elderly before retirement, I have seen many who have lost everything in a matter of months due to the cost of long term care. At that point, they end up on public assistance. So, when one spouse is in long term care at the taxpayers expense, the other spouse if evicted from their home and has lost all the savings they may have had.

Maybe I'm missing your point.

[donquixote99]

It is a hard problem, with right on both sides. I think in most cases a spouse is supposed to be able to continue living in the home, but the state will want it upon his or her death. There is a legal maneuver, the irrevocable trust, which can evade this claim of the state if done soon enough.

Wide entitlement to support, for medical and long-term care and other needs, is the best answer, so taxpayers can feel that they along with everyone are entitled to non-means-tested benefits, without the need to spends down to poverty first.

[barbara]

Donquixote, I've not seen a case where the spouse can remain in the home. But then, I don't know all the particulars for every state so i don't doubt your statement.

Back to infrastructure....... I was also wondering if Biden put things in his original proposal that he knew would be negotiated out. A way of giving him a buffer to keep things he really wants to keep in the proposal.

[Oerets]

The few time that I have knowledge of, when one spouse goes on Medicaid for long term care. The other can stay in the home until a point then also go into care or move on. Being a 1/2 owner. With the 1/2 being sold to cover expensive of care at this point.

My point of argument is in this country it is very apparent what the majority of citizens what. That no one looses their home, savings to pay for long term care. It is not fair or equatable to have the some who choose to save work hard be punished when those who have not get care at tax payers expense. That is why I feel it should be considered as such, a benefit for all, in infrastructure supported by taxes.

[barbara]

My point of argument is in this country it is very apparent what the majority of citizens what. That no one looses their home, savings to pay for long term care. It is not fair or equatable to have the some who choose to save work hard be punished when those who have not get care at tax payers expense. That is why I feel it should be considered as such, a benefit for all, in infrastructure supported by taxes.

I totally agree.

[Oerets]

From wiki.....


""Infrastructure is the set of fundamental facilities and systems that support the sustainable functionality of households and firms. Serving a country, city, or other area, including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.""

I can see where the argument can and should be made that the heath and care of it's population is one of the pinnacles of the economy. Just not being thought of as one because of those that have good care now take it for granted. Seem to know just where and who would have to pay. The old I've got mine, screw you!