Too Poor to Retire and Too Young to Die

[Ravin]

But...What do you do with the books when you....need the casket?

 

That is the bigger problem!

 

If you need the casket, then it becomes someone else's problem.

[Dad 4 Boys]

If you need the casket, then it becomes someone else's problem.

 

True dat!

[Tsuga]

Maybe it's not new to everyone else, but most of the people who don't work in that field that we've talked to have been as surprised as we were. We're not talking indefinite 24 hour nursing care; we're referring to the last 24-48 hours of her life, when she might be on IV painkillers or incontinent and need to be changed.

Sadly, you never know how long they will last. Some people live for years that way. It is extremely difficult for the family.

 

That is why they won't pay. It could just go on forever, it seems.

[LucyStoner]

I don't think it is wages that haven't kept pace, it is take home pay that haven't kept pace with inflation. Taxes have skyrocketed.

This is not correct. Income taxes are generally lower. What is far higher is housing, transportation and childcare costs.

 

The federal income tax brackets in 1955 went from 20%-91%, with folks in the middle paying about 26%. Now those brackets run from 10%-39.6%. That's a significant drop and there are more credits for families now than before. Many modest means families have a negative tax rate- meaning they recieve more in refundable credits than they owe in taxes.

 

A family of 2 I just prepared a return for (using the standard deduction, child tax credit and the deduction for the interest on a modest amount of student loans but no other credits or anything) actually only paid 7.4% with an income that is just above the median nationally.

 

In 1955 a family with a median national income in many areas could have easily afforded to buy a small 2 or 3 bdrm house if they were GI bill eligible. This family, who is earning above the median, splits a small apartment with another family of 2 and lives very modestly. 1 older car, rides the bus to work to save on gas, utilizes private school only due to scholarship funds. They just recieved notice that their rent is going up $300. I seriously doubt that when I do their taxes again next year, their income will be $3600 higher.

 

We also collect SS taxes on a smaller portion of income (when adjusted for inflation).

 

Estate and capital gains taxes are also lower now than then.

 

I'm not sure where you are getting your information if you think income is higher and taxes have skyrocketed.

[LucyStoner]

Let's not forget that Social Security was passed because, even before the Great Depression, elderly Americans often faced horrendous poverty. Have you read first hand accounts of pauper's homes in the very early 20th century? The people most likely to be there were older people or disabled people unable to do back breaking work.

 

It seems some people think that long ago the country was prosaic and only filled with self reliant, thrifty savers who universally took care of each passing generation in turn. No. There have always been people without means, without families, who either through choice or misfortune (usually a combination of factors), went without care and support in their declining years and either starved or nearly starved.

[Georgiana Daniels]

After reading this thread, A. I'm more depressed and stressed (I was already having a mid-life crisis) and B. I need to increase our 401K contributions, especially since dh's company has now decreased what they will contribute.

 

Sigh.

[Tree Frog]

Sadly, you never know how long they will last. Some people live for years that way. It is extremely difficult for the family.

 

That is why they won't pay. It could just go on forever, it seems.

 

You're right. Our expectations were significantly different than what is happening and we're having to adjust them. I'm just thankful she and fil were frugal so she can afford the extra care.

[Ravin]

After reading this thread, A. I'm more depressed and stressed (I was already having a mid-life crisis) and B. I need to increase our 401K contributions, especially since dh's company has now decreased what they will contribute.

 

Sigh.

 

I know what you mean about the 401K. Right now, I contribute 2.5% of my pay, and my employer matches half that. They would match half up to my contributing 6% (they would put in 3%). I hope to increase my contribution once I get some debts paid off. Really I probably shouldn't wait, but the 25% return isn't compounded and the 18.5% interest on my credit card is!

 

I have a VERY hard time wrapping my head around how anyone racks up $50K in credit card debt. I have a tenth that and it's too much! The woman in that article probably pays like $800/month JUST in interest on her CC debt. That's nuts.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Ravin

[Georgiana Daniels]

I know what you mean about the 401K. Right now, I contribute 2.5% of my pay, and my employer matches half that. They would match half up to my contributing 6% (they would put in 3%). I hope to increase my contribution once I get some debts paid off. Really I probably shouldn't wait, but the 25% return isn't compounded and the 18.5% interest on my credit card is!

 

I have a VERY hard time wrapping my head around how anyone racks up $50K in credit card debt. I have a tenth that and it's too much! The woman in that article probably pays like $800/month JUST in interest on her CC debt. That's nuts.

 

Finding companies who contribute anything substantial to their employees retirements is so hard anymore. My dh's company used to contribute 5%, and I didn't realize at the time how good that was.

 

I've been doing a ton of soul-searching this afternoon to consider what I might do career-wise once the kids graduate.

[Tree Frog]

I don't believe in assisted suicide, but I've had some horrifying situations with children who weren't ready to let dying parents go and who insisted on reviving them when dying from cancer over and over again. It just extended the parent's pain, not to mention the expense.  I've made it very clear to my family I do not want them doing that to me.  If I am dying, let me die, don't take me to the ER over and over again.

 

I've also seen situations where a young accident victim was medicated into a coma without the family's knowledge or consent.  Moved to a different hospital when the family refused to donate organs, medications were reduced and the person was suddenly not in a coma any more.

 

I know it's uncomfortable to choose hospice.  To go home or into a nursing home. But IME those were the best situations for everyone involved. I've never worked in a hospital where when a fatal diagnosis was found, hospice wasn't recommended.  Sometimes people are ready to hear that and sometimes they are not.  Even if you're not choosing assisted suicide, with some illnesses giving the amount of medication it takes to keep pain under control will hasten death.  That's not the same thing as assisted suicide, but keeping someone snowed so they feel no pain will probably mean they pass in days or weeks instead of months, just because it slows body functions.  I have no ethical problems with that.  Some nurses do.

 

Sometimes a patient will choose hospice and then forget.  They'll want to go to the hospital, which is very distressing to their spouse if they are doing in home hospice care.  Increasing their pain medication will usually make them more comfortable.

 

I don't believe in using independent assisted living facilities that aren't connected to nursing homes, ever. They are dangerously, and sometimes criminally unsafe, frequently used by people who should be in a nursing home but simply don't want to be, and are a huge waste of money.  I think they should be outlawed, or at the very least elderly parents and children should have to sign extensive acknowledgements that there is NO nursing oversight, there are dangerous chemicals left out, and essentially you are paying for an expensive apartment with no more care than living independently and having a neighbor check on them once or twice a day.  If they are connected to a nursing home they are inspected and licensed and there is oversight, so I'm okay with that.

 

What will ultimately happen to the woman in the article is that she'll end up in a nursing home.  She'll have to sell her RV, she'll move into a nursing home that accepts medicaid, and she'll share a room. Not luxurious, but her needs will be met.

 

We've told our parents that they are welcome to move in with us if they want or need to.  And they can stay here unless and until they either have dementia OR need 24 hour care, in which case we'll find a good nursing home for them, and we will visit often and at varying times. IME people whose families visit often get priority care, even in really good facilities.  We will not be subsidizing independent living, though we could be convinced to build a guest house if one of our parents wanted to feel more independent but still be close.

 

I wanted to address the bolded because it doesn't apply to all assisted living facilities. Mil's facility is licensed and inspected, but I don't know to what extent. I believe it's due to the facility keeping and dispensing all prescription medications. I would expect the differences might be state rather than federal oversight, but I don't know that for sure. There is also an RN who helps out, but her primary duties are administrative.

 

MIL lives in an AL facility that has memory care associated with it, but not a nursing home. She receives 3 balanced meals every day (brought to her room if needed), has her laundry and housekeeping done weekly and as needed, is given her medications when they're scheduled (she doesn't have to do anything with them except swallow), and has a call button to push when she needs any kind of help 24 hours/day. The staff also helps other residents with bathing and dressing daily. Having this support has allowed her to maintain some independence, which is very important to her. There are graduated levels of care available at her facility with different prices. If a resident needs very little help, that person doesn't pay extra. Mil is at the highest level because she needs laundry done more frequently, is given meds more than 4X/day, and is frequently confused and unstable on her feet, so the staff help her between her lift chair, the bathroom, and her wheelchair. They also keep an eye on her when she's in the bathroom because she falls asleep while on the toilet. It's not a perfect system. I follow her meds very closely and there have been times she has been given the wrong med, no med when she should have had one, and told she did take one she didn't. However, I don't believe that's due to being an assisted living facility. I think it happens in nursing homes, too.

 

Unfortunately, she is at the point where she really should be in a nursing home, but two of her wishes have been to not live with any of her kids (her mil was a large burden on her and she doesn't want to be the same ) or to live in a nursing home. Thus, we have added an evening aide 7 nights/wk to help her get ready for bed and a hospice aide 5X/week in the morning to help her bathe and get dressed. As care is needed, we'll add it. But she will be allowed to pass away where she is right now.

[Anne in CA]

I know what you mean about the 401K. Right now, I contribute 2.5% of my pay, and my employer matches half that. They would match half up to my contributing 6% (they would put in 3%). I hope to increase my contribution once I get some debts paid off. Really I probably shouldn't wait, but the 25% return isn't compounded and the 18.5% interest on my credit card is!

 

I have a VERY hard time wrapping my head around how anyone racks up $50K in credit card debt. I have a tenth that and it's too much! The woman in that article probably pays like $800/month JUST in interest on her CC debt. That's nuts.

50K isn't much when you realize that she racked up most of that with repairs to the motor home. A motor home is still a car, lol, people forget that they need very costly repairs. That is part of what happened to the next couple too. They needed costly repairs almost as soon as they bought it.  They put themselves in the worst possible situation by bailing on their home. I knew lots of people in Portland that were in the situation they were in years ago. Most of those people got roommates, extra jobs, went to the food bank for groceries and kept their homes. It was hard, but they managed.

 

The woman in the article had been divorced twice. Twice she had divided her assets, that couldn't have helped. She seems like a free spirit, my guess is that she didn't go after everything she could in either divorce. Women tend to play nice during divorce, this is probably partly why so many women are living in poverty when they are older. That is one thing that we as a society could do to help women. Make sure they get a fair shake during divorce.

[Tree Frog]

This has nothing to do with where she lives. Medicare doesn't pay for 24 hour home nursing care for anyone. This is also not part of outpatient hospice care. To get Medicare to pay for that level of care, one needs to be in a nursing home or a residential hospice. This is not new, it's been like that for years. 

 

My understanding was that if the patient lived in his/her own house/apartment, he/she could receive 24 hour care at the end of life. Maybe my understanding is incorrect (I need to look at the link (I think) you posted), so my frustration was that it shouldn't matter if they're in their own house or an assisted living facility, if care is provided at the house, it should also be at the assisted living place. Clearly, I need to look into it further and not rely on the hospice companies as my primary source of information.

 

I'm curious (and obviously don't answer if you don't want to); are you in the medical profession or do you have personal experience? You have a lot of medical knowledge. I appreciate you sharing it with me. This is all new and I'm gaining a lot of new knowledge, primary medical, myself. It's also been enlightening for my mom; she'll be facing this in about 10 years.

[FaithManor]

Hospice varies wildly from state to state. My FIL died a prolonged, very painful death and at his absolute worst and requring a ton of care, only received 4 hours of hospice help per week. Yet other states have very robust hospice services. It pays to find out what is availabld before crunch time. That said, I cannot get my parents to even glance at any of the information I have pulled together for them.

[Tree Frog]

Many people are surprised at what Medicare will and will not pay for. It might help to think about it like this: Medicare is much like any other health insurance. If a traditional health insurance policy won't pay for it, chances are Medicare won't either. That might keep you from being caught unaware. 

 

Here is a concise summary of what Medicare pays for as far as home health is concerned: https://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/10969.pdf

 

Here is a concise summary of how Medicare pays for hospice and what is included, I think it leaves a lot of detail out, though: 

https://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/02154.pdf

 

Here is a concise summary of Medicare coverage of skilled nursing facilities: 

https://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/10153.pdf

 

 

IV's and incontinence are things that a family can handle with a little bit of training. I know it doesn't make sense to someone who hasn't had any medical training, but that is the thought process that Medicare has - a skilled nurse is not needed to carry out those tasks, so they will not pay for one.  Adults who are incontinent need the same type of care as a baby does - a nurse is not required for that.  Changing the medication bag is very easy - the tubing just has male/female connections like your computer cords do (they do look different, but it's the same concept).  Home health or hospice nurses take care of the actual IV insertion, if needed, and they also program the medication pump as the family is locked out of that function. Often, the pain medication that is used isn't administered through an IV, though. Patches are quite common now. 

 

When families can't manage medication and incontinence issues, it is more cost effective for Medicare to pay for a nursing facility than it is for them to pay for continuous home nursing, so that is what they do. If the patient is at home, they must first be admitted to the hospital for a minimum of three days, meet specific criteria as far as medical necessity is concerned and then transfer to a skilled nursing facility, and then Medicare only pays for no more than 100 days. After that, patients usually qualify for Medicaid which takes over the payments for nursing home care (custodial care), which may or may not be available in the same facility.  In my opinion, this isn't ideal, but it is what it is. A lot of people could stay in the comfort of their own homes if the family had a bit of support. 

 

That said, I know of many situations where hospice nurses stayed with families for several hours at a time during that last day or two.  They simply cannot promise to do so due to the demands of their jobs - they may be needed several places at once and they have to make hard choices. 

 

Just so you're aware, though, many people require assistance with incontinence care and medication long before the last couple of days of their lives. Neither of these needs are limited to the last few days of life. 

 

Thank you for laying things out for me. I just read the links you gave. The info makes sense. I just need to adjust my (apparently outdated) expectations. We're trying to figure things out (medically, financially) before they're needed so we won't make poor decisions based on our emotions at the end. This was one of the things that rocked our boat and talking it out and having additional information has helped. Thank you.

 

I believe mil's nurse would stay for several hours if needed and she was able. She came out twice a day for several days and visited mil on her day off. She has asked me to let her know (after I call the on duty hospice nurse) if there is a problem or if mil is passing away. Mil's nurse is fabulous. She has also said hospice will provide a nurse for longer periods of time if pain or another symptom is unmanaged.

 

I thought a nurse would need to handle all the IV stuff if needed. I could learn whatever is needed doing for mil's care as long as I don't have to handle the dosing (which you said is handled by a nurse.) And clearly I could handle the incontinent stuff. I've stopped working to be able to care for her during the day, and I'm the go-to person for any staff member with questions or concerns.

[TechWife]

My understanding was that if the patient lived in his/her own house/apartment, he/she could receive 24 hour care at the end of life. Maybe my understanding is incorrect (I need to look at the link (I think) you posted), so my frustration was that it shouldn't matter if they're in their own house or an assisted living facility, if care is provided at the house, it should also be at the assisted living place. Clearly, I need to look into it further and not rely on the hospice companies as my primary source of information.

 

I'm curious (and obviously don't answer if you don't want to); are you in the medical profession or do you have personal experience? You have a lot of medical knowledge. I appreciate you sharing it with me. This is all new and I'm gaining a lot of new knowledge, primary medical, myself. It's also been enlightening for my mom; she'll be facing this in about 10 years.

 

Yes, I'm really sorry, your understanding is incorrect. Medicare and Medicaid do not pay for 24 hour home care, no matter where the "home" is. The only way to get Medicare or Medicaid to pay for that level of care is to be in a hospital, inpatient hospice program or a skilled nursing facility (SNF). The law specifically states that Medicare considers an assisted living facility to be the person's home and they pay for covered home care and hospice services. Twenty-four hour care is not a covered service. What Medicaid pays for and where the patient must be to receive services varies by state, because Medicaid is a state run program. 

 

A reputable hospice will provide accurate reimbursement information. If they violate the law, the run the risk of losing their license and being charged with fraud, which is why they are well aware of the services they can and cannot provide. It is in your families best interests though for everyone to educate themselves so that they can plan and advocate effectively. The links are provided are pretty easy reads and aren't filled with "lawyer speak" so hopefully they will be helpful to you. 

 

My background is in healthcare administration. Before DS was born, I was employed (at different times) by a durable medical equipment company and a hospital based home health care agency, which included home health care, a hospice and a home infusion (IV) service. Most of my work was done on the financial side of things - primarily patient reimbursement. Right now I am volunteering in patient relations for a hospital system while I decide what I want to do with my "empty nest." I am also the "kid in charge" of all of the insurance and health care coverage questions and issues that arise with my parents (they are 85), so I have a lot of recent, practical experience with Medicare reimbursement in the home, pharmacy, hospital and SNF environments. 

 

I will say, for the benefit of those who might find this thread at another time, that there are some special state programs that pay for 24 hour in home nursing care and the state administers payment for that care through their Medicaid programs. The people who receive coverage for this level of care are severely disabled and often have multiple medical problems.  I think some states also have special programs for people with specific diagnoses, such as AIDS. I'm not overly familiar with them. These programs are the exception, not the rule, though.  The natural process of aging and/or disease doesn't fall into the category of people that would be covered under these special programs. There are often very long wait lists for these programs as well because funding is limited. The best place to explore whether or not a family member is eligible for such a program is through the county social service office or the state department of health and human services. A hospital social worker can help facilitate the application process as well for patients that are in their facilities. 

Edited February 5, 2016 by TechWife

[elegantlion]

don't tell your dad, but you can buy ones that are designed to be used as a bookshelf until you actually die. http://www.naturescasket.com/Casket.html

 

That would be perfect, going out in a bookcase. I'd have them stash a few books in there  too. 

 

Retirement? I'll be working until I am no longer physically able. I do hope I'll be able to work in a field I find interesting. 

[Ravin]

50K isn't much when you realize that she racked up most of that with repairs to the motor home. A motor home is still a car, lol, people forget that they need very costly repairs. That is part of what happened to the next couple too. They needed costly repairs almost as soon as they bought it.  They put themselves in the worst possible situation by bailing on their home. I knew lots of people in Portland that were in the situation they were in years ago. Most of those people got roommates, extra jobs, went to the food bank for groceries and kept their homes. It was hard, but they managed.

 

The woman in the article had been divorced twice. Twice she had divided her assets, that couldn't have helped. She seems like a free spirit, my guess is that she didn't go after everything she could in either divorce. Women tend to play nice during divorce, this is probably partly why so many women are living in poverty when they are older. That is one thing that we as a society could do to help women. Make sure they get a fair shake during divorce.

 

Yeah, part of why my mom is in as good a position as she is is that she kept records and was able to prove that her inheritance from her dad paid the substantial down payment on the first house my parents bought, and she had records that showed how much of the equity in the second house they had was from the sale of the first house, so when she and my dad divorced, she was able to keep the house (community property state). Since she already owned it when she married my stepdad, she was able to keep it when THEY divorced, and it's paid off. The house is a very important piece of her security at this point.

 

That lady's motor home in the original article is clearly a money pit. I plan on getting a trailer if I go that route--that way when the tow vehicle needs replaced or is in the shop, I still have a roof over my head. A trailer is a lot easier to maintain over time than a motor home, thought it does depreciate. The article said she owned a mobile home before that, and wound up a wash in selling it because it was sitting on a lot where the rent had increased beyond her ability to pay.

 

I couldn't see buying a home that both depreciates AND can't be moved by hitching it up and going, unless I put it on land I owned or had an already paid-for VERY long term lease on. 

Edited February 5, 2016 by Ravin

[Supertechmom]

My SS benefit paper says only 67% of the scheduled benefits will be paid in 2037 which is when I will be 66. When I helped my mom with her SS, the lady in the office said her understanding is that if nothing changes and laws do not correct it, all SS benefits will be reduced to pay everyone something.    So far nothing has changed that I am aware of.  So I am basing my thoughts on  that I won't get all back especially since retirement age I believe is 70 or 72 for my husband and me and not 62 and 65. 

[Tita Gidge]

No, you're not the only one who is bothered. I always feel so badly for the elderly women and men I see working thankless jobs at places like Walmart. They ought to be cozy at home drinking a cup of coffee and doing the daily crossword.  :(

 

I think that's a very sweet thing for you to think. I find myself thinking it at times, too - people you can just tell are having to work hard.

 

In my culture, it's common for grandparents to stay home with the kids while parents work outside of the home. I grew up with this and so have my kids. 

 

BUT what I'm seeing more of, especially with people who marry outside of our culture (to people who come from different traditions and family types) are the grandparents working outside jobs and sharing their EARNINGS (as opposed to their TIME) so that their daughters or DILs can stay home with the kids.  There's a big of a shift happening, which is interesting to me.

 

I retired in my mid-30s, with a modest but decent income and benefits. I plan to find an easy, low-stress job once my youngest hits high school or older. I'd love the job of watering plants at Home Depot, or being the Walmart greeter!  I think my ideal job would be to stock vending machines.  Or maybe even to be a house cleaner - put on some music, get a solid workout and see immediate gratification for a job well done!  

[sewingmama]

My MIL amd FIL are this. They are in their 70's and had to sell their home to pay bills and now live in a campervan...in Canada! The sad thing is they were headed to be millionaires from a company they owned but a partner totally hosed them and took everything. So they couldn't retire because they had no money and were left with a ton of business debt.

 

The good news is after many bad years FIL was able to build things up again from scratch and is looking good financially again finally... but his health is failing... he gets sick a lot and still has to travel overseas and to the USA to keep his business going.

 

I pray everyday they don't just drop dead in the harness..it is so unfair.

[creekland]

I know what you mean about the 401K. Right now, I contribute 2.5% of my pay, and my employer matches half that. They would match half up to my contributing 6% (they would put in 3%). I hope to increase my contribution once I get some debts paid off. Really I probably shouldn't wait, but the 25% return isn't compounded and the 18.5% interest on my credit card is!

 

I have a VERY hard time wrapping my head around how anyone racks up $50K in credit card debt. I have a tenth that and it's too much! The woman in that article probably pays like $800/month JUST in interest on her CC debt. That's nuts.

 

Any chance you can change credit cards?  My mind made a mental gasp at that 18.5% rate.  That's really high unless you're a credit newbie.  The cards we keep at at 7.9%, 10.9%, and 12.9%.  Any of those would make a huge difference if one is paying interest.  Check out Discover or any credit union you could belong to.

 

(We have a Wally World, Kohls, and other store cards that have higher interest rates.  I've no idea what those are, 'cause we keep them paid off.  If I know I'm going to carry a balance, I'll use a low interest card.)

[Joules]

My understanding was that if the patient lived in his/her own house/apartment, he/she could receive 24 hour care at the end of life. Maybe my understanding is incorrect (I need to look at the link (I think) you posted), so my frustration was that it shouldn't matter if they're in their own house or an assisted living facility, if care is provided at the house, it should also be at the assisted living place. Clearly, I need to look into it further and not rely on the hospice companies as my primary source of information.

 

I'm curious (and obviously don't answer if you don't want to); are you in the medical profession or do you have personal experience? You have a lot of medical knowledge. I appreciate you sharing it with me. This is all new and I'm gaining a lot of new knowledge, primary medical, myself. It's also been enlightening for my mom; she'll be facing this in about 10 years.

 

My mother was in home hospice here at our house.  She required round-the-clock care for what turned out to be three months.  Hospice staff provided about an hour a day; we provided the other 23 ourselves.  Hospice nurses were available 24/7 by phone to us, and in an emergency they would make an additional visit, but they mostly guided us by phone.  We did have the option to pay a home health care company for additional hours of help.  The only way 24/7 would have been available to us was if she was in the hospice facility (which I guess is similar to a nursing home?)*

 

My MIL was in home hospice with her family for years and the same hour a day was true.  More care required a trip to the hospital.

 

Another note is that in the real world, you don't always know when those final 24-48 hours are.  There are lots of..."OK, this is it. Gather the family."  And then it's not.

 

Check your state.  It may be that you have awesome benefits that provide someone in the home 24/7, but I've never heard of that.

 

 

*ETA: I'm not sure if Medicare would have paid for everything if we moved her to the hospice facility.  I never checked into it because Mom wanted to stay home.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Joules

[madteaparty]

If you need the casket, then it becomes someone else's problem.

Lol! It's part of the "legacy".

[cjzimmer1]

I wanted to address the bolded because it doesn't apply to all assisted living facilities. Mil's facility is licensed and inspected, but I don't know to what extent. I believe it's due to the facility keeping and dispensing all prescription medications. I would expect the differences might be state rather than federal oversight, but I don't know that for sure. There is also an RN who helps out, but her primary duties are administrative.

 

MIL lives in an AL facility that has memory care associated with it, but not a nursing home. She receives 3 balanced meals every day (brought to her room if needed), has her laundry and housekeeping done weekly and as needed, is given her medications when they're scheduled (she doesn't have to do anything with them except swallow), and has a call button to push when she needs any kind of help 24 hours/day. The staff also helps other residents with bathing and dressing daily. Having this support has allowed her to maintain some independence, which is very important to her. There are graduated levels of care available at her facility with different prices. If a resident needs very little help, that person doesn't pay extra. Mil is at the highest level because she needs laundry done more frequently, is given meds more than 4X/day, and is frequently confused and unstable on her feet, so the staff help her between her lift chair, the bathroom, and her wheelchair. They also keep an eye on her when she's in the bathroom because she falls asleep while on the toilet. It's not a perfect system. I follow her meds very closely and there have been times she has been given the wrong med, no med when she should have had one, and told she did take one she didn't. However, I don't believe that's due to being an assisted living facility. I think it happens in nursing homes, too.

 

 

 

My grandmother lived in assisted care for the last 5 years and her experience was very much like this.  Previously my grandfather had been in a different place but with a similar structure.  However, both of these places provided end of life care, meaning they would provide whatever was necessary other than hospital care so the patient wouldn't need to move to new places when they needed more care.  Not all assisted living places provide this.  I also know my grandfather had hospice nurses comes in every day on top of the regular care provided my the assisted living. 

 

Nursing homes around here are a commodity market.  Set up very much like a hospital, two to a room, almost no personal space, minimal personal belonging etc.  When a bed becomes vacant the next person on the list is put there, no choice in roommates etc. The assisted living facilities are very nice and while not the same as dying in one's home, provide an experience as close to that as possible while still providing the necessary medical care to support the person.  In the last few days of my grandfather's life, the staff was in there almost every hour.  They brought food from the cafeteria for the family so we never had to leave his bedside etc. I'm sure there are bad ones out their too but they are not all that way.

 

[TechWife]

If people are interested in assisted living, please do your research before you settle your mind on the fact that you will do that for a family member or for yourself. The average cost in my state for assisted living is $3,000 per month. That is all out of pocket. Facilities offer different services, but they charge for them. My aunt & uncle lived in a facility that had a "dining room" they could use. Each meal cost $10/person. That's $30/day, $110/week, $440/month. There were "package deals" that they could pay for up front. Some of them included daily aids to assist with bathing, housekeeping, laundry, meals, etc. as they were needed as they grew older and more infirm. The basic package included none of that - it was basically rent,   the ability to summon help via pull cords placed throughout the apartment and planned recreation activities (not all of which were free). 

 

Assisted living facilities vary widely, so be careful and make sure you know the costs up front so that you can spend your money wisely. 

 

 

[Ravin]

My SS benefit paper says only 67% of the scheduled benefits will be paid in 2037 which is when I will be 66. When I helped my mom with her SS, the lady in the office said her understanding is that if nothing changes and laws do not correct it, all SS benefits will be reduced to pay everyone something.    So far nothing has changed that I am aware of.  So I am basing my thoughts on  that I won't get all back especially since retirement age I believe is 70 or 72 for my husband and me and not 62 and 65. 

 

When social security first passed, with the retirement age set at 65, average life expectancy was something like 62 or 63.

 

People are living and healthy to longer ages on average now than then, and it is therefore appropriate that the age was increased. Not doing it sooner (boomers) is part of why it's got the problems it does. If it had been adjusted to average life expectancy all along, maybe people would not be looking at retirement as something that's reasonably expected to last a third of their lives.

[Ravin]

Any chance you can change credit cards?  My mind made a mental gasp at that 18.5% rate.  That's really high unless you're a credit newbie.  The cards we keep at at 7.9%, 10.9%, and 12.9%.  Any of those would make a huge difference if one is paying interest.  Check out Discover or any credit union you could belong to.

 

(We have a Wally World, Kohls, and other store cards that have higher interest rates.  I've no idea what those are, 'cause we keep them paid off.  If I know I'm going to carry a balance, I'll use a low interest card.)

 

This is my USAA credit card. My credit is mediocre and my car loan is still pretty new, so my chance of qualifying for something better before I have this paid down at least 2/3 of the way is pretty much nil.

 

Oh, and it's 18.15% interest. So slightly lower than I thought. It's still pretty awful, which is why paying it down is a goal of mine.

[Carol in Cal.]

This is my USAA credit card. My credit is mediocre and my car loan is still pretty new, so my chance of qualifying for something better before I have this paid down at least 2/3 of the way is pretty much nil.

 

Have you looked at the Chase Slate card?

Balance transfers are free for the first three months, and 0% interest for the first year or so.  

I'm not sure what it takes to qualify, but have the impression that it's not just 'perfect credit' folks that can get this.  

 

Also our credit union did have a 0% card for the first year with pretty easy quals, and the interest rate after that was on the low side of the normal range.  Credit unions are member owned, so often they have better deals than the banks and again not just for perfect credit households.

[TammyS]

Finding companies who contribute anything substantial to their employees retirements is so hard anymore. My dh's company used to contribute 5%, and I didn't realize at the time how good that was.

 

I've been doing a ton of soul-searching this afternoon to consider what I might do career-wise once the kids graduate.

 

I've been thinking the same thing, but wondering how I can make it into some sort of business for myself.  We still have a five year old, so the idea of me going into regular employment again just isn't going to happen.

[Ravin]

I've looked into some of the offers that come in the mail for balance transfer cards that are supposedly preapproved. When I went online to fill them out, I was told I had too much debt load to qualify. I'd as soon focus on paying it down than keep hopping around trying to find someone to take it off my hands. It's only $5K, not that much. Nor do I want to multiply the number of credit cards I have. My student loan debt, I'm sure, factors in to the availability of credit. That number is along the lines of $300K, which is on income-based repayment and on track for 10 year forgiveness. In ten years, I'll be able to qualify for more credit, I'm sure!

[TammyS]

Yeah, part of why my mom is in as good a position as she is is that she kept records and was able to prove that her inheritance from her dad paid the substantial down payment on the first house my parents bought, and she had records that showed how much of the equity in the second house they had was from the sale of the first house, so when she and my dad divorced, she was able to keep the house (community property state). Since she already owned it when she married my stepdad, she was able to keep it when THEY divorced, and it's paid off. The house is a very important piece of her security at this point.

 

That lady's motor home in the original article is clearly a money pit. I plan on getting a trailer if I go that route--that way when the tow vehicle needs replaced or is in the shop, I still have a roof over my head. A trailer is a lot easier to maintain over time than a motor home, thought it does depreciate. The article said she owned a mobile home before that, and wound up a wash in selling it because it was sitting on a lot where the rent had increased beyond her ability to pay.

 

I couldn't see buying a home that both depreciates AND can't be moved by hitching it up and going, unless I put it on land I owned or had an already paid-for VERY long term lease on. 

 

Mobile homes are a total waste of money (and that's not looking down on people who live in them, because I did, for a lot of years).  But the double wides now cost as much as a modest home ($100K+), except it doesn't include the lot/hook ups/ and does depreciate like a car.  And they don't hold up as well, either. They don't hold up as well and they aren't energy efficient.  Unfortunately, the dealers end up selling to people of the most modest means who can least afford to have such a bad investment.

[Ravin]

Mobile homes are a total waste of money (and that's not looking down on people who live in them, because I did, for a lot of years).  But the double wides now cost as much as a modest home ($100K+), except it doesn't include the lot/hook ups/ and does depreciate like a car.  And they don't hold up as well, either. They don't hold up as well and they aren't energy efficient.  Unfortunately, the dealers end up selling to people of the most modest means who can least afford to have such a bad investment.

 

A mobile home is something I would only consider IF I owned the land it was going to sit on and either couldn't afford an on-site build or had plans to do that but not the funds up front for it and needed a place to live while I built.

 

I can completely see where in a rural/remote area the prefab is going to be more affordable. I personally would look at things like building kit homes or go with something genuinely less expensive like a SMALL travel trailer or a yurt or something to live in while building something that will last.

 

I would much rather build an alternative home from local materials if I was going to situate myself on a piece of remote rural property, though.

 

I do know a few people who have bought a mobile home + long-term lease in a mobile home community dirt cheap. It made sense for them at the time and is no doubt cheaper than paying the kind of rent I currently pay for a townhouse.

 

I would never consider a mobile home an investment--it's shelter, not real estate. 

[TammyS]

A mobile home is something I would only consider IF I owned the land it was going to sit on and either couldn't afford an on-site build or had plans to do that but not the funds up front for it and needed a place to live while I built.

 

I can completely see where in a rural/remote area the prefab is going to be more affordable. I personally would look at things like building kit homes or go with something genuinely less expensive like a SMALL travel trailer or a yurt or something to live in while building something that will last.

 

I would much rather build an alternative home from local materials if I was going to situate myself on a piece of remote rural property, though.

 

I do know a few people who have bought a mobile home + long-term lease in a mobile home community dirt cheap. It made sense for them at the time and is no doubt cheaper than paying the kind of rent I currently pay for a townhouse.

 

I would never consider a mobile home an investment--it's shelter, not real estate. 

 

I looked at double wides when I did own the land.  It's not cheaper.  The double wide is $100K+, well $5k+, septic $12K+ (this might be cheaper in other areas, but I live on the Chesapeake Bay and septics are required to nitrogen removal systems), electrical hook up 10K.  There's probably other things I'm not thinking of, but anyway when you are talking about a depreciating asset that costs $100K+, that is financial suicide. 

[LucyStoner]

My SS benefit paper says only 67% of the scheduled benefits will be paid in 2037 which is when I will be 66. When I helped my mom with her SS, the lady in the office said her understanding is that if nothing changes and laws do not correct it, all SS benefits will be reduced to pay everyone something. So far nothing has changed that I am aware of. So I am basing my thoughts on that I won't get all back especially since retirement age I believe is 70 or 72 for my husband and me and not 62 and 65.

The full retirement age for people born after 1960 stands, for now, at 67. Partial benefits are still technically slated to be available starting at 62 but that is not generally a good option to take.

 

While there has been a lot of talk of raising it as high as 72, it hasn't happened yet. There's a lot of pushback on those types of proposals.

 

While 70 or 72 might be fine for healthy knowledge workers in jobs without hefty physical demands, it doesn't sound reasonable to me for workers in physically demanding jobs who don't have time or the faculties to retrain.

 

What I would like to see is some way for people who worked in back breaking professions be able to get their benefits a bit earlier. What I see a lot of in the homeless population here are folks who are physically limited from their previous or only professions (often physical labor type work) but not actually considered disabled. Even for those in that situation who manage to hang onto employment of some type generally get screwed. Work until you are 55 in a higher paying but physically intense profession, lose that because you earn more than your more physically able coworkers and then end up working a low paying service job for the last 7-11 years before you take some level of SS benefits and your benefit level is based on your recent low service wages and not your higher heavy labor oriented wages.

 

I know a 58 year old woman who would have ended up homeless when she lost her (fairly well paying with tips) waitressing job after a prolonged serious respiratory infection if not for her daughter and SIL. She's in terrible physical condition but now back at work as a waitress with MUCH lower pay at a chain diner type place. I don't think the fact that she's worked her whole life as a waitress should mean that she ends up homeless or severely impoverished. It strikes me as unlikely that she will still be able to waitress at 66. She's holding on for 4 more years, but that means way less in monthly SS benefits. It seems unfair that the people most likely to be tempted to take reduced benefits are probably those with low enough lifetime earnings that they need the SS income far more than a white collar worker in good health who can much more easily wait until age 66 to file for SS.

[Dad 4 Boys]

I've looked into some of the offers that come in the mail for balance transfer cards that are supposedly preapproved. When I went online to fill them out, I was told I had too much debt load to qualify. I'd as soon focus on paying it down than keep hopping around trying to find someone to take it off my hands. It's only $5K, not that much. Nor do I want to multiply the number of credit cards I have. My student loan debt, I'm sure, factors in to the availability of credit. That number is along the lines of $300K, which is on income-based repayment and on track for 10 year forgiveness. In ten years, I'll be able to qualify for more credit, I'm sure!

 

I'm asking this question purely out of curiosity.  What kind of education did you borrow $300K for that has left you where you can't get it paid off and will be taking forgiveness?

[LucyStoner]

I looked at double wides when I did own the land. It's not cheaper. The double wide is $100K+, well $5k+, septic $12K+ (this might be cheaper in other areas, but I live on the Chesapeake Bay and septics are required to nitrogen removal systems), electrical hook up 10K. There's probably other things I'm not thinking of, but anyway when you are talking about a depreciating asset that costs $100K+, that is financial suicide.

A lot of people who live in mobile homes/trailers aren't living in nice new ones. They are buying one in poor condition with cash and renting the space from the park it was already on or they are dragging something they got for free or very cheap that doesn't meet code onto family land or some land they bought for very little. Many of these homes would be condemned if someone official came to look.

 

I once drove my oldest nephew home to his mom and step dad in very rural central Florida. I drove off the freeway, then off the highway, then off the paved road, then off anything that could qualify as "a road" at all. There was a mass of ramshackle trailer homes plunked down there. Dead of night, no lights. When his stepdad didn't immediately answer it was all I could do to not put him back in the rental car and commit felony kidnapping by flying him back to the PNW with me. Who lived all the way back there? People like his stepdad. Very low income and often with open warrants for their arrest. I think the "landlord" was charging them some insane sum.

 

Where I live the senior only mobile home communities are fairly tidy and well maintained. The others appear to mostly be decaying with 1 or more families living there.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I've been thinking the same thing, but wondering how I can make it into some sort of business for myself.  We still have a five year old, so the idea of me going into regular employment again just isn't going to happen.

 

Ive thought of trying my own business (at least briefly thought of it, along with everything else!) but that still feels risky to me. My youngest is 10 so I only have 8 or so years before I need to be working full-time. I figure if I can work for 15 years then we have a decent chance of entering into retirement debt-free. As long as we have a house/car/some kind of savings from 401k then we should be ok. Not great, but not a burden to our kids.

[LucyStoner]

I'm asking this question purely out of curiosity. What kind of education did you borrow $300K for that has left you where you can't get it paid off and will be taking forgiveness?

A lot of recent law graduates have moderate earning potential and 150k+ debt. Add in undergrad with years of compounding interest and it adds up.

 

Many law graduates aren't finding jobs that will come anywhere close to servicing that level of debt. With IBR and public interest/charitable loan forgiveness available, it's a fairly compelling option for new graduates.

[Dad 4 Boys]

A lot of recent law graduates have moderate earning potential and 150k+ debt. Add in undergrad with years of compounding interest and it adds up.

 

Many law graduates aren't finding jobs that will come anywhere close to servicing that level of debt. With IBR and public interest/charitable loan forgiveness available, it's a fairly compelling option for new graduates.

 

Were the potential income prospects looking better back when a recent law school graduate started their undergraduate education?

[LucyStoner]

Were the potential income prospects looking better back when a recent law school graduate started their undergraduate education?

Let's just say there is a reason I am getting my CPA and opted not to get a JD. The legal market is better now for recent graduates than it was in 2009-2014 though. Law school was also where some folks tried to wait our the recession. Given the fairly limited access that low and moderate income people have to accessing critically needed legal assistance though (such as family law where DV is in play) I am all for making it worthwhile/feasible for people to go to work for legal aid services. One state is now offering a limited license to practice parts of family law without a law degree. Like the legal equivalent of a nurse practitioner/physician's assistance ("mid level" practioners). I think this is going to need to be expanded as the price of law school becomes so prohibitive. The ABA will fight to limit the role of such folks though.

[idnib]

What I would like to see is some way for people who worked in back breaking professions be able to get their benefits a bit earlier. 

 

I agree, although I'd also like a program (as someone mentioned earlier in this thread) to re-train people who still want to work in less physical professions. I think a lot of people in their 40s, 50s and early 60s who can no longer handle physical labor would still enjoy training and work. Its an option to allow those who want to be re-trained to keep earning more money than their base benefit would give them.

[Guest]

That was the hardest emotional article I've had to read.  It's crazy how many people are like that these days.  In the old days, people lived in a village and looked out for the elderly but in our invidividualistic world, it's every person for themselves.  

 

Depends what old days we're talking about.

 

Have you read Two Old Women? It is an excellent fictional account of a real thing that happened the world over.

[FaithManor]

I would not wax poetic about the good ole days. The village usually had enough of a time staying alive and caring for young without caring for the elderly. Many an older person died alone in their homes and sometimes from relatively simple things like dehydraton because they couldn't make it tothe well and back, others died of heat stroke while working outdoors to cultivate food,chop wood for winter, etc., and many died from hypothermia.

 

Given the infant and child survival rate, a lot of people never had a child live to adulthood much less to middle age in order to care for them, and the "vilage" needed every able-bodied person working not care giving. It was a simple fact of life. Only the wealthy who could afford servants had reliable care.

 

I think that often people have watched too many Little House on the Prarie episodes and truly believe that Walnut Grove is how it really was! Nope. Not even close.

 

Poorhouses, many an elder who could not hire servants died in those.

[LucyStoner]

I agree, although I'd also like a program (as someone mentioned earlier in this thread) to re-train people who still want to work in less physical professions. I think a lot of people in their 40s, 50s and early 60s who can no longer handle physical labor would still enjoy training and work. Its an option to allow those who want to be re-trained to keep earning more money than their base benefit would give them.

There are such funds in my state. The completion and sucessful hire rates for those over 50 are apparently quite low. If they finish the retraining, they are usually at a disadvantage in hiring to other new trainees who are younger. Age discrimination in hiring is a huge barrier for older workers, especially ones trying to crack into a new field. Interviewers are younger than them and they tend to assume that hiring someone who will retire in just a few years is a waste of their resources. It's also darn near impossible to enforce the laws banning age discrimination.

 

My father was laid off from his non-physically demanding ordinary office job at the phone company just before 60. He spent a year looking for ANY job and then another year trying to keep up with the state offered course to retrain in something else. He's a smart man but his ability to memorize the information he needed to in order to pass was fairly low. In the end all the retraining really did for him was allow him to extend his unemployment coverage so he could sort of stay afloat until he got early SS and a senior housing assignment at 62. He'd only been with the phone company for 6-7 years before he was laid off and had minimal assets.

 

Another gentleman I know looked 70+ in his 50s because he'd lived a hard life and had worked from the time he got out of the service until there were no more jobs in his industry he could do. Really, at some point, there were just barely any jobs in this state in his old industry (logging/mill work). He lived and, to the best of my knowledge, still lives in his truck. He's a street vendor because he looks so worn out he couldn't get a retail job. Doing that he takes in enough to buy food and gas. He's too proud to accept any help finding housing. People would wonder why he was still needing to work at all- wondering why he wasn't collecting SS- and it was because he was more than a decade younger than he looked. While he was a perfectly nice person, he really wasn't mentally up to retraining. And frankly, I think it's somewhat insulting of our state to ask him to retrain at that age and in that condition.

 

While I am all for retraining people who want to and are up for it, I really don't like living in a world where we can spend money trying to get folks to retrain but not on keeping lifetime laborers from having to live in their trucks when their bodies give out or their jobs vanish before they are retirement age.

Edited February 5, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

I think that often people have watched too many Little House on the Prarie episodes and truly believe that Walnut Grove is how it really was! Nope. Not even close.

 

 

Word. Seriously, between LHOTP and all those 1950s sitcoms I think the narrative many people have of the past is absurdly removed from the reality. It's a myth people!

 

And if they read the books rather than just watched the show, they might realize, even in the sanitized version of the Long Winter that life back then was really.freaking.hard.on.people.

[idnib]

There are such funds in my state. The completion and sucessful hire rates for those over 55 are apparently quite low. If they finish the retraining, they are usually at a disadvantage in hiring to other new trainees who are younger. Age discrimination in hiring is a huge barrier for older workers, especially ones trying to crack into a new field. Interviewers are younger than them and they tend to assume that hiring someone who will retire in just a few years is a waste of their resources. It's also darn near impossible to enforce the laws banning age discrimination.

 

Yes, age discrimination is definitely an issue. Perhaps the idea could be to target people 40-ish in the hopes that employers would be more likely to hire them. It seems barring serious accidents, people who perform physical labor do well until their late 30s, and then it seems to be knees, backs, and shoulders that suffer the most. Maybe there's some data on an ideal age, I don't know.

[Frances]

Were the potential income prospects looking better back when a recent law school graduate started their undergraduate education?

The relatively new income based loan repayment programs with forgiveness after ten years of working in the public or non-profit sectors can actually make it quite appealing to acquire large debt while pursuing a JD or MD degree. For example, the majority of hospitals are non-profits and many lawyers are employed by the government or non-profits. The program was originally designed to entice various professionals to work in underserved areas or lower paying positions, but has benefited many others.

[Forget-Me-Not]

don't tell your dad, but you can buy ones that are designed to be used as a bookshelf until you actually die. http://www.naturescasket.com/Casket.html

Wow.  I have very mixed feelings about this. 

[LucyStoner]

The relatively new income based loan repayment programs with forgiveness after ten years of working in the public or non-profit sectors can actually make it quite appealing to acquire large debt while pursuing a JD or MD degree. For example, the majority of hospitals are non-profits and many lawyers are employed by the government or non-profits. The program was originally designed to entice various professionals to work in underserved areas or lower paying positions, but has benefited many others.

I'm willing to bet that IBR will be restructured at some point to cap the amount that can be forgiven or increase the payment amounts or the years of payment for higher earning professionals. Otherwise, it's just going to become unsustainable and run the risk of being eliminated altogether. While it was intended to help people with low incomes, the beneficiaries recieving the largest benefits are actually professionals with the largest amount of debt- MDs and JDs. Essentially it runs the risk of dis-incentivizing people to keep their loan balances as low as possible.

Edited February 6, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Tsuga]

After reading this thread, A. I'm more depressed and stressed (I was already having a mid-life crisis) and B. I need to increase our 401K contributions, especially since dh's company has now decreased what they will contribute.

 

Sigh.

 

Boy are we right there with you.