How to Handle Your Aging Parents' Finances

Reader Comments
Back to article

IF A PERSON ENTERS AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY IN FLORIDA, AND ONE OF
THE CHILDREN HAS BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING BILLS FOR 5 YEARS OUT
OF THE OLDER PARENTS SOURCE OF RETIREMENT INCOME, AND THEY ARE BOTH ON THE ACCOUNT, HOW MUCH IS REQUIRED TO SPEND MONTHLY ON THE MOTHER OR FATHER? THERE IS A POA IN PLACE GIVING THE CHILD THE RIGHT TO HANDLE ALL FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.

BRENDA of FL 10:32PM December 13, 2012

This was a very informative article to read. Right now I am in a position where I have to take care of my parents and their finances. I have so stressed going over different ways to accomplish this. I am thrilled to have stumbled upon this article because it gives me a great base to look at. I also stumbled upon another website called agingparents.com that also gives you in depth steps to take for elderly finances.

Elizabeth Polk of AZ 5:54PM February 24, 2010

This is an excellent overview of the issues. However, there is a difference between planning the financial side of things/getting the details organized and creating a true family transition plan. As a family transition coach who specializes in working with baby boomers and their aging parents, I can tell you that thinking through the "business of life" issues is critical too. For example, if you don't live near your parents and something happens, which of your siblings will be the "first responder"? If your parrent prefers to stay at home, what resources are available in their community to assist you and them? I invite you to have a look at my family transition blog at www.LifeBridgeSolutions.com/Family-Transition-Blog.

Sheri Samotin of FL 8:38AM August 10, 2009

We always appreciate it when someone advocates long-term care planning and long-term care insurance as a viable option.
But it is very important for readers to understand one must health qualify for coverage and that ability diminishes as one ages. Now if your parents are in their 60s they still have a good chance. By 70s it gets much harder and pretty pricy. By 80, only a few carriers will even consider.
The ideal time to start long-term care planning is actually your mid 50s - when you are still most likely to health qualify for protection. You can buy some affordable protection that you add to as you get older.
Just a thought. May I suggest those interested in more information visit the Consumer Information center of the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance's website. Lots of info on ways to save, ratings for leading LTC insurers, tax rules and more.
Jesse Slome
Executive Director
American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance
http://www.aaltci.org/

Jesse Slome of CA 11:56AM August 08, 2009

Add that it is a good idea to have a durable power of attorney for health care and also for finances - in case your parent becomes seriously disabled.
Also, after the mid 80s (in age) consider how nice it is to have the support of a retirement community with a food service, transport to appts, activities, someone checking on your well-being daily. The isolation of staying in your home alone as you age into frailty is daunting, in my opinion.

Janet Harvey of WA 3:02AM August 08, 2009

As a matter of fact, Congressional Republicans have their own health care reform plan in addition to the bipartisan plan still being negotiated in the Senate.
If you vote liberal and a liberal Democrat health plan is approved, beware of rising taxes and less health care for the sick and elderly. Some sort of commission may set guidelines for what kind of care is appropriate for the sick and elderly. This is what makes some people very nervous. You can read about this possibility on pages 425 and 425 of the health care plan available at edlabor.house.gov.
No, this particular plan does not mandate end of life consultations as some people seem to think. In fact, Medicare, if it still exists, might well pay for those consultations.
There is evidently no mention of any insurance coverage on long term care in any of the health plans being discussed. Republicans or conservatives as well as Democrats or liberals might both agree to allow some coverage - or they might not. It's pure speculation.
George Bush's second term was preoccupied not with Social Security but with Iraq. Despite opposition from Democrats including Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the surge Bush ordered in Iraq turned a worsening situation around and stabilized it. The astute American Commander in Iraq then, General David Petraeus, was basically called a liar by then Senator Hillary Clinton, who's now Secretary of State and by MoveOn.org, the liberal attack machine. Both were wrong.
Meanwhile, liberals rejected Bush's warning that Social Security was heading toward insolvency and scoffed at his recommendation of VOLUNTARY partial privatization so Social Security recipients could invest in stocks and/or bonds.
But, liberals now suddenly agree that Social Security is indeed heading toward insolvency. Maybe part of the problem is that not enough people pay taxes - especially some of the key people appointed by President Obama to be high-ranking members of his administration.

Wayne Corey of CA 1:40AM August 08, 2009

to always, always vote liberal. The main goal (unfulfilled, thankfully) of the second term of G.W. Bush was to partially privatize Social Security and give your and your folks' guaranteed annuity to Wall Street to sell back to you at a substantial profit for the moneychangers.
The health care reform now being debated would be a total non-starter if you still had Republicans.
Keep enough liberals long enough and you'll probably get some help with long term care too.
But if you wimp out and give the government back to the Palinites then the entire future of your extended family is at extreme risk.

Muser of NM 4:41PM August 07, 2009