Seniors escaping healthcare costs by divorcing
- Thread starter Cutehumor
- Start date
- Status
Quote:
Assume, for the moment, that we had "typically American" children that sucked us dry and can't be bothered with taking care of the geezers.
They've been told all their life that is what the government and their taxes are for, so why bother. And that works both for the kid taking care of their parents and their parents raising the kids in such a way that the kid would want to take care of them...
Assume, for the moment, that we had "typically American" children that sucked us dry and can't be bothered with taking care of the geezers.
They've been told all their life that is what the government and their taxes are for, so why bother. And that works both for the kid taking care of their parents and their parents raising the kids in such a way that the kid would want to take care of them...
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Dual incomes and gains made in consumerism wouldn't have had anything to do with that, would they, Tempest?? I mean, what would things look like if we regressed to "the good old days"? How would the Dow have ever hit 10k+ in the time of wealth and prosperity??
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Suppose it wasn't dementia? Suppose I get some condition that is 100% debilitating and 100% permanent? Am I shirking my responsibilities by divorcing my wife to assure that she's got a home to live in? ..or..if the situation presented itself, just throw any of the security that she may be afforded ..and just put her on the street? Assume, for the moment, that we had "typically American" children that sucked us dry and can't be bothered with taking care of the geezers.
The answer is yes.You should carry adequate insurance to cover those possibilities. maybe forgo that new car and plasma to pay for it.
Suppose it wasn't dementia? Suppose I get some condition that is 100% debilitating and 100% permanent? Am I shirking my responsibilities by divorcing my wife to assure that she's got a home to live in? ..or..if the situation presented itself, just throw any of the security that she may be afforded ..and just put her on the street? Assume, for the moment, that we had "typically American" children that sucked us dry and can't be bothered with taking care of the geezers.
The answer is yes.You should carry adequate insurance to cover those possibilities. maybe forgo that new car and plasma to pay for it.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Suppose it wasn't dementia? Suppose I get some condition that is 100% debilitating and 100% permanent? Am I shirking my responsibilities by divorcing my wife to assure that she's got a home to live in? ..or..if the situation presented itself, just throw any of the security that she may be afforded ..and just put her on the street? Assume, for the moment, that we had "typically American" children that sucked us dry and can't be bothered with taking care of the geezers.
The answer is yes.You should carry adequate insurance to cover those possibilities. maybe forgo that new car and plasma to pay for it.
You're quoting some "what if" scenario. Suppose it's my wife with a run down house in some urban butt hole town and we were still using a 27" tube television with rabbit ears and she gave up her license since she was legally blind?
..and what in the [ANNNK!!] does that have to do with marital commitment??
Not a darn thing. PEL-EEZE
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Suppose it wasn't dementia? Suppose I get some condition that is 100% debilitating and 100% permanent? Am I shirking my responsibilities by divorcing my wife to assure that she's got a home to live in? ..or..if the situation presented itself, just throw any of the security that she may be afforded ..and just put her on the street? Assume, for the moment, that we had "typically American" children that sucked us dry and can't be bothered with taking care of the geezers.
The answer is yes.You should carry adequate insurance to cover those possibilities. maybe forgo that new car and plasma to pay for it.
You're quoting some "what if" scenario. Suppose it's my wife with a run down house in some urban butt hole town and we were still using a 27" tube television with rabbit ears and she gave up her license since she was legally blind?
..and what in the [ANNNK!!] does that have to do with marital commitment??
Not a darn thing. PEL-EEZE
Originally Posted By: Tempest
They've been told all their life that is what the government and their taxes are for, so why bother. And that works both for the kid taking care of their parents and their parents raising the kids in such a way that the kid would want to take care of them...
What I see is quite different. The current generation of young people have less disposable income after everything than their parents already have, and the parents are usually better capable of taking care of themselves than the kids can take care of them.
I think most of the kids still have good relationships with their parents, just that you graduate with all sorts of loan like student loan, mortgage, taxes, etc when you are young.
They've been told all their life that is what the government and their taxes are for, so why bother. And that works both for the kid taking care of their parents and their parents raising the kids in such a way that the kid would want to take care of them...
What I see is quite different. The current generation of young people have less disposable income after everything than their parents already have, and the parents are usually better capable of taking care of themselves than the kids can take care of them.
I think most of the kids still have good relationships with their parents, just that you graduate with all sorts of loan like student loan, mortgage, taxes, etc when you are young.
I don't see anything wrong with the divorce. The choice is losing everything and then both of yuo being on welfare. The divorce is a legal status. I seriously doubt that in their hearts and minds that they are anything else but still married. In todays world of both parents working the idea of the children taking the parents in and taking care of them is getting harder and harder. In the old days they used to, but also in the old days the wife usually didn't work and also a parent didn't usually live a long time either. Now a parent can be kept alive and try taking care of a full grown baby, which is what many of them end up being. Few have the ability give medication either. Try to price having people to come in and help. My aunt and uncle did and it cost a small fortune.They ended up losing a lifetime of savings and still ended up in a care home. I know that my inlaws had a division of assets so that they could only take half of their assets. He tried for quite a while to take care of his wife, but finally had to put her into a nursing home. This way he was able to keep the home and car and at least half of his assets.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Suppose it wasn't dementia? Suppose I get some condition that is 100% debilitating and 100% permanent? Am I shirking my responsibilities by divorcing my wife to assure that she's got a home to live in? ..or..if the situation presented itself, just throw any of the security that she may be afforded ..and just put her on the street? Assume, for the moment, that we had "typically American" children that sucked us dry and can't be bothered with taking care of the geezers.
The answer is yes.You should carry adequate insurance to cover those possibilities. maybe forgo that new car and plasma to pay for it.
You're quoting some "what if" scenario. Suppose it's my wife with a run down house in some urban butt hole town and we were still using a 27" tube television with rabbit ears and she gave up her license since she was legally blind?
..and what in the [ANNNK!!] does that have to do with marital commitment??
Not a darn thing. PEL-EEZE
You're just trying to find a scenario where it is acceptable to you to mooch off of the taxpayer. Buy some insurance. I did and it was not that expensive.
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Suppose it wasn't dementia? Suppose I get some condition that is 100% debilitating and 100% permanent? Am I shirking my responsibilities by divorcing my wife to assure that she's got a home to live in? ..or..if the situation presented itself, just throw any of the security that she may be afforded ..and just put her on the street? Assume, for the moment, that we had "typically American" children that sucked us dry and can't be bothered with taking care of the geezers.
The answer is yes.You should carry adequate insurance to cover those possibilities. maybe forgo that new car and plasma to pay for it.
You're quoting some "what if" scenario. Suppose it's my wife with a run down house in some urban butt hole town and we were still using a 27" tube television with rabbit ears and she gave up her license since she was legally blind?
..and what in the [ANNNK!!] does that have to do with marital commitment??
Not a darn thing. PEL-EEZE
You're just trying to find a scenario where it is acceptable to you to mooch off of the taxpayer. Buy some insurance. I did and it was not that expensive.
Last edited:
What about the 5% of workers who are purposely left unemployed as that is the "sweet spot" beyond which there are either inefficiencies, or inflation.
The system plans them to be unemployed to make the system more "efficient"
Who gives them a safety net ?
HOW can they buy insurance to avoid "mooching" off th taxpayer ?
Why don't you buy your own roads, to avoid "mooching off the taxpayer"?
The system plans them to be unemployed to make the system more "efficient"
Who gives them a safety net ?
HOW can they buy insurance to avoid "mooching" off th taxpayer ?
Why don't you buy your own roads, to avoid "mooching off the taxpayer"?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
What about the 5% of workers who are purposely left unemployed as that is the "sweet spot" beyond which there are either inefficiencies, or inflation.
The system plans them to be unemployed to make the system more "efficient"
Who gives them a safety net ?
HOW can they buy insurance to avoid "mooching" off th taxpayer ?
Why don't you buy your own roads, to avoid "mooching off the taxpayer"?
The safety net is there for the people that truly need it. Not for people who figure out a way to manipulate the system -move assets etc. I know people who do that. Instead of buying health insurance they have a real nice Escalade.
What about the 5% of workers who are purposely left unemployed as that is the "sweet spot" beyond which there are either inefficiencies, or inflation.
The system plans them to be unemployed to make the system more "efficient"
Who gives them a safety net ?
HOW can they buy insurance to avoid "mooching" off th taxpayer ?
Why don't you buy your own roads, to avoid "mooching off the taxpayer"?
The safety net is there for the people that truly need it. Not for people who figure out a way to manipulate the system -move assets etc. I know people who do that. Instead of buying health insurance they have a real nice Escalade.
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Suppose it wasn't dementia? Suppose I get some condition that is 100% debilitating and 100% permanent? Am I shirking my responsibilities by divorcing my wife to assure that she's got a home to live in? ..or..if the situation presented itself, just throw any of the security that she may be afforded ..and just put her on the street? Assume, for the moment, that we had "typically American" children that sucked us dry and can't be bothered with taking care of the geezers.
The answer is yes.You should carry adequate insurance to cover those possibilities. maybe forgo that new car and plasma to pay for it.
You're quoting some "what if" scenario. Suppose it's my wife with a run down house in some urban butt hole town and we were still using a 27" tube television with rabbit ears and she gave up her license since she was legally blind?
..and what in the [ANNNK!!] does that have to do with marital commitment??
Not a darn thing. PEL-EEZE
You're just trying to find a scenario where it is acceptable to you to mooch off of the taxpayer. Buy some insurance. I did and it was not that expensive.
Hopefully, your insurance company will still be around when you need it. Perhaps insurance bailouts will still be the norm at the time you need a payout from your insurance company.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Suppose it wasn't dementia? Suppose I get some condition that is 100% debilitating and 100% permanent? Am I shirking my responsibilities by divorcing my wife to assure that she's got a home to live in? ..or..if the situation presented itself, just throw any of the security that she may be afforded ..and just put her on the street? Assume, for the moment, that we had "typically American" children that sucked us dry and can't be bothered with taking care of the geezers.
The answer is yes.You should carry adequate insurance to cover those possibilities. maybe forgo that new car and plasma to pay for it.
You're quoting some "what if" scenario. Suppose it's my wife with a run down house in some urban butt hole town and we were still using a 27" tube television with rabbit ears and she gave up her license since she was legally blind?
..and what in the [ANNNK!!] does that have to do with marital commitment??
Not a darn thing. PEL-EEZE
You're just trying to find a scenario where it is acceptable to you to mooch off of the taxpayer. Buy some insurance. I did and it was not that expensive.
Hopefully, your insurance company will still be around when you need it. Perhaps insurance bailouts will still be the norm at the time you need a payout from your insurance company.
Let's face it, you can only buy insurance when you are young and healthy, with no pre exist condition. When you are old and sick, you are not profitable to the insurance company at a rate that is affordable to you. You can still buy insurance, but at what cost? $40K a year?
The fundamental model of insurance is not about cost saving, but averaging cost between like risk clients. You pay what is likely to care for you plus a slight profit for the insurance industry, but you are not eliminating a problem of high cost of care.
This cost averaging can be done by the government or by the insurance, or let the people die when they are too expensive or they lose their bet (by not having insurance and live in a country without public health care).
This debate has been going on for ages, and is only about how to cut the pie, rather than making the pie smaller.
The fundamental model of insurance is not about cost saving, but averaging cost between like risk clients. You pay what is likely to care for you plus a slight profit for the insurance industry, but you are not eliminating a problem of high cost of care.
This cost averaging can be done by the government or by the insurance, or let the people die when they are too expensive or they lose their bet (by not having insurance and live in a country without public health care).
This debate has been going on for ages, and is only about how to cut the pie, rather than making the pie smaller.
- Status
