Chuckie":4g8pyiel said:
Isn't this why farms (and other assets) should be held in a trust?
Government Shutdown
- Thread starter HDRider
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
- Status
Isn't this why farms (and other assets) should be held in a trust?
Chuckie":17kashz7 said:
Come to Texas and they can't touch the Homestead.
TexasBred
Well-known member
Some people file bankruptcy every 7 years just because they can. Has nothing to do with assets and ability to pay, but a lot about their character.Chuckie":3j4ryx9l said:
As for the nursing home...none of them want empty beds. Might get them to negotiate a little bit. Never hurts to ask.
TexasBred
Well-known member
TennesseeTuxedo":3n2oj18k said:
True but you had to do it (use to be) 7 years prior to entering the home. They could go back that far and check records, etc. Money moved on the eve of admission to the nursing home as well as other assets would be fair game. Most nursing homes I've ever heard about pretty much settled for whatever medicare, medicaid and SS paid.
Since I have not been in the middle of bankruptcies, and trying to get a trust broken, I can only repeat what other people talk, and I have heard so much BS. But I do know of a house that sits empty because I was told that the nursing home had more ownership in it than the family. It is a nice home out in the county, and the yard has not been kept up in a long time. I wonder what the real story is there? Maybe the man or woman won't let anyone move into it. Probably a family of Democrats. :lol:
Brute, my brother has serious problems with his heart, and great doctors. They didn't take his house, and they did reduce his bills, but it still cost him. People want to keep their doctors if they are keeping them alive, and he sold his house, and paid what he owed. He doesn't regret it as he lived in a big house and downsized greatly. He no longer needed the large house. I am thankful that I did not inherit a heart like he has.
Caustic Burno
Well-known member
Brute 23":1dbhjyc8 said:
True but they dam sure can put a lien against it and get their money off the top when it is sold or inherited at probate.
I'm with Caustic on this!
They will go after people who have the money and just don't want to pay it. Chuckie in your own words he had a bigger house than he needed and was able to down size to pay his bill. That is how it works. You run up a bill you have to pay it.
I am drawing a blank right now on what it is called but older people or people with a lot of health issues should transfer their homes our of their name to their heirs. The owner still has control of the house until they die but its not actually in their name. Life estate maybe... it will come to me.
I am drawing a blank right now on what it is called but older people or people with a lot of health issues should transfer their homes our of their name to their heirs. The owner still has control of the house until they die but its not actually in their name. Life estate maybe... it will come to me.
It is a Life Estate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_estate
In the United States, a life estate is typically used as a tool of an estate planning. A life estate can avoid probate and ensure that an intended heir will receive title to real property. For example, Al owns a home and desires that Bill inherit it after Al's death. Al can effectuate that desire by transferring title to the home to Bill and retaining a life estate in the home. Al keeps a life estate and Bill receives a vested fee simple remainder. As soon as Al dies, the life estate interest merges with Bill's remainder, and Bill has a fee simple title. Such transfer of interests make unnecessary the use of a will and eliminates the need to probate the asset. The disadvantage to the grantor, however, is that the grant to the remainderman is irrevocable without the remainderman's consent. "Beneficiary deeds" have been statutorily created in some states to address this issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_estate
In the United States, a life estate is typically used as a tool of an estate planning. A life estate can avoid probate and ensure that an intended heir will receive title to real property. For example, Al owns a home and desires that Bill inherit it after Al's death. Al can effectuate that desire by transferring title to the home to Bill and retaining a life estate in the home. Al keeps a life estate and Bill receives a vested fee simple remainder. As soon as Al dies, the life estate interest merges with Bill's remainder, and Bill has a fee simple title. Such transfer of interests make unnecessary the use of a will and eliminates the need to probate the asset. The disadvantage to the grantor, however, is that the grant to the remainderman is irrevocable without the remainderman's consent. "Beneficiary deeds" have been statutorily created in some states to address this issue.
TexasBred
Well-known member
Caustic Burno":2w8e07we said:
Yessir absolutely including all expenses associated with their attempt to collect the debt.
TexasBred":27qwqga0 said:
I believe that is the reason for the life estate. They can not put a lean agaist Granny's house because she does not own it. They can still put it against her estate... which should not have any thing in it.
TexasBred
Well-known member
Brute 23":3pkxcne0 said:
Can't answer that Brute. Timing could be of the essence.
Im not sure about the accuracy of this but the premise is dead on. 
OP
OP
HDRider
Well-known member
Sounds about right to me.
There's a reason they say, "close enough for goverment work."
We'd hit mars if we aimed at the moon. And call it good. The press would sing praises.
There's a reason they say, "close enough for goverment work."
We'd hit mars if we aimed at the moon. And call it good. The press would sing praises.
Brute 23":2386hlns said:Im not sure about the accuracy of this but the premise is dead on.
Implied in that text and many of the postings I've seen on this board is a purported fact that a whole lot of people who currently don't get treatment will suddenly besiege our limited number of doctors and cause some health care shortage. My understanding has always been that most people do get cared for but the poor and indigent, the less astute end up going to hospital emergency rooms for their care. And everyone of us pays for the cost of care of the indigent and the poor in some manner. I don't think most of the ill simply put up with their illness without seeking some assistance. Those that do may or likely will end up requiring greater care, efforts, drugs whatever at a later time and they will get that from emergency rooms and the cost will again be borne by everyone. So it is conceivable at least that costs will ultimately be reduced and doctors freed up if proper, normal care is available. Conceivably.
This doesn't imply I support or don't support ACA. It does mean when I see major problematic logic flaws I believe they should be pointed out.
Were we in a position where the indigent, the poor and uninsured were entirely denied medical assistance ( even charitable assistance) then I think we could face a shortage of doctors when everyone gets insurance. Otherwise I do think this "shortage" is a fallacy.
OP
OP
HDRider
Well-known member
Not sure it implied some overwhelming new wave of patients vying for the same number of doctors. I took it to mean that all this money is going for subsidizing insurance and enforcement where maybe subsidizing doctor care might help more.
Not sure my interpretation is right, just different.
Not sure my interpretation is right, just different.
CottageFarm
Well-known member
Then for that lapse in logic, I think you should be pointing a finger at the people who insisted that Obamacare was necessary so that those 20 million people without insurance would be able to receive proper care. That what this was all predicated on, remember? If the currently uninsured are mainly poor/indigent/illegal...whatever, NOTHING is going to become less expensive. We will all still pay for their healthcare just that we will simply be shifting the flow of money. And since there will now be more layers of bureaucracy added to the process, it will cost even more than before.
If, on the other hand, many of those 20 million uninsured were so by choice, and will now be required to pony up, at minimum, several thousand dollars a year for insurance that they didn't real want or need, seems to me they're going to find a way to make damn sure they're getting their money's worth and not just help make your insurance cheaper.
At least that's going to be my plan for being forced into this BULLSHYTTE!!
If, on the other hand, many of those 20 million uninsured were so by choice, and will now be required to pony up, at minimum, several thousand dollars a year for insurance that they didn't real want or need, seems to me they're going to find a way to make damn sure they're getting their money's worth and not just help make your insurance cheaper.
At least that's going to be my plan for being forced into this BULLSHYTTE!!
- Status
