Senior Living Facility...Why Not?

[+ bashful]

3 hours ago, Lchnsf said:

I had been after my parents for years to make arrangements for an alternative living situation be it assisted living or an apartment that would better suit their needs. My dad is 98 and his child bride is 90. During the last year my mom was in and out of the hospital with lymphedema in her leg and finally ended up in skilled nursing. My dad had Congestive Heart Failure in the spring, was admitted to the hospital where he fell and broke his arm. He was also admitted to skilled nursing. 

This facility is one step away from a hospital and currently there is no prospect of either of them getting out. I went back to their home to sell their belongings and prepare the house for sale. 
 

It bothers me that they didn’t head my advice and find a place on their own where they could live with dignity. Instead they are having everything taken from them, their home, their belongings and the staff has stolen jewelry that my mother held dear. 
 

My dad knows he fucked up but he can’t believe he is spending the rest of his life in that place. 
 

Bottom line, I would rather go to a place of my choice then end up in a place I couldn’t stand. I live recklessly enough that hopefully I won’t have to make the choice, but I would choose assisted living if it meant I could continue on with dignity. 

A few years ago, while I was still in my late 50s, was given the advise to start considering a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) where I could transition from independent living (when still able enjoy the amenities), to additional care as needed.  A family member lives in one, has a 2 bedroom apartment, pool, exercise facility, 4 restaurants, 2 or 3 lounges that serve cocktails and appetizers, bus service, a convenience store, and some other stuff.  It’s like a resort.

In my 60s now, and think about it more often.  I haven’t begun to check out prices yet, but as the population ages, more of CCRCs will no doubt open to accommodate the growth.  

[jeezifonly]

If you have visited anyone  in an average corporate chain skilled nursing facility, you’ve probably noticed that one resident, probably near a nurse’s station, who’s angrily yelling to no one in particular for attention. “Somebody better get in here, or there’s gonna be hell to pay.” Crazy old lady.

Well, that was my 90yr old mom in what was prescribed post-stroke rehab, when she actually had a brain tumor they weren’t looking for. Up to the first seizure-like event, she was in a 55+ active senior complex, nice one bedroom. No care, no meals. Independent scaled down living.

So her drastic personality change was not a result of being in the place, but the care she needed was always just out of reach, and the other residents were mostly variations on a similar theme - neither demented enough and too “we’ll off” for funded memory care, too poor for transitional assisted living, not independent enough to be left alone in a child’s home during working hours - it has been/will be the fate of too many - and now I also gotta worry about getting booted out for being “too handsy” with the male aides who are tasked with lifting us? Oy vey.

How do we get insurance that will cover the routine preventative maintenance of a nice massage …or something… maybe 2 hrs once a month. I don’t know, it might keep me from yelling at no one in particular.

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by jeezifonly

[+ bigjoey]

6 hours ago, BSR said:

Living on a cruise ship would be a zillion times more fun than an assisted-living center.  As the article points out, it might even be cheaper.  But I wonder about access to doctors.  I saw a feature on Mama Lee on YouTube, and lucky for her she's in excellent health.  On the rare occasion that she has a minor health problem, the ship's physician can take care of her.  But most seniors need much more medical care, for example, the thread about prostate cancer elsewhere on this forum.  No matter what course of treatment a man with prostate cancer pursued, he'd have to abandon ship until remission.  Many seniors deal with chronic conditions that require a specialist's care, far beyond anything a ship's doctor could provide.  But hey, if your health allows you to do it, why not live on a cruise ship full time?  Even if you have to abandon the lifestyle at some point, you'll have a helluva good time until then.

Some of the cruise lines accommodate special medical conditions.  For example, Crystal Cruise Lines had multiple dialysis machines on its ships👍.  Some ships accommodate those motorized vehicles some people use for mobility. Some ships accommodate wheel chair bound people.

[+ bigjoey]

There are the beginnings of special facilities for gays:

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/06/7-elder-communities-like-living-gayborhood/
 

[+ WilliamM]

2 hours ago, bigjoey said:

There are the beginnings of special facilities for gays:

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/06/7-elder-communities-like-living-gayborhood/
 

Ugh 

 

Like living vin Fort Lauderdale

[+ SundayZip]

7 hours ago, Unicorn said:

What kind of a silly set of leading answers is that? No, hell no, and I don't think so? How about Yes, under the right set of circumstances?

Thank-you.

[+ WilliamM]

8 hours ago, Unicorn said:

What kind of a silly set of leading answers is that? No, hell no, and I don't think so? How about Yes, under the right set of circumstances? My mother developed dementia and couldn't tell night from day, take her meds, cook for herself, or even turn off the gas in the house. She was in a panic most nights. Even if I could have quit my job to take care of her, I couldn't do so 24 hours a day. And it would have to be someone with medical know-how. 

There are situations in which living in a senior assisted-living facility becomes necessary. I have let my beau (perhaps permanent partner one day?) "Chris" know that I have a long-term care insurance policy, and that if I need constant care I won't be a burden. I have asked me to place me in a senior assisted living facility near here called Belmont Village. Another Belmont Village near my mother's old place (that one was in Albany CA) took great care of her. They have an RN on duty 24/7, and the meals are prepared by professional chefs (in fact, I enjoyed the meals when I came to visit her at dinnertime after work). They even served wine with dinner, had a cafe, daily activities, enrichment programs, etc. 

https://www.belmontvillage.com/locations/hollywood-hills/

Yes, going on a cruise ship for the rest of one's life would be a less expensive option, but the cruise ship wouldn't be able to make sure I took my meds, made it to meal-times, nor could they handle someone panicking in the middle of the night. And yes, the Belmont Village does offer private 1-bedroom "apartments" which offer privacy if one were to wish having sex, etc. 

Having sex!  You are a romantic, or  a wishful thinker. 

[Guest]

Maybe the OP should watch the recent movie The Father with Anthony Hopkins. Not necessarily my type of movie, but I watched it on my flight from Europe back to the US. Although somewhat confusing to watch, since it's told from the viewpoint of the demented character Hopkins plays, it goes over the agonizing necessity of assisted care needed for someone in this condition. It apparently got 98% on Rotten Tomatoes, so you can bet the movie's well done. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Father_(2020_film)

[+ Charlie]

This is a very relevant topic for me, and none of the poll answers are appropriate.

When my mother was widowed at 75, she realized that she couldn't continue to take care of a big house and live alone, so she moved to an "age restricted" development in Florida, in which both of her younger sisters lived. Although she had her own small home, as her eyesight failed, she needed more and more help from one of her sisters. Then she had a mastectomy at 88, and I suggested that it was time for her to move to Philadelphia to live with my partner and me. But we both worked fulltime, and she was bored living in our home, with no social life. So at 94, she announced that she wanted to move to a continuum of care community connected to her church. She moved into an assisted living apartment there, where she could take part in activities and make friends with her peers. Eventually she became so disabled that she had to be moved into the nursing care facility there, where she was not happy--but then who is happy slowly dying anywhere?

My spouse and I have no children or family members who could take care of us if it became necessary, so when he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's six years ago, we started looking at continuum of care communities for ourselves. We decided we really weren't ready to make that big a move yet, so we opted to move into an "active adult 55+" development instead. It has been a good choice for the past four years, but nothing stays the same permanently. We are both physically healthy now, but as his condition deteriorates, I am turning into pretty much a fulltime caregiver, and I am starting to think again about continuum of care communities, because at some time we will both need to be taken care of. I hope to God I don't live as long as my mother, but who knows?

We all would like to be independent until the very end of our lives, but one of the consequences of modern medicine and healthy lifestyles is that it is not realistic for many of us to just drop dead quickly while playing tennis or preparing a dinner for guests in our lovely home (or while having sex with a gorgeous escort). Finding the right place to live in our final years is neither easy nor fool-proof (COVID certainly taught us that), but it doesn't do any good to ignore the issue.

[Luv2play]

My oldest brother has recently had to place his wife, who suffers from Alzheimer's, into a long term care facility after more than 55 years of marriage. They had sold their home and moved into a condo when she first started having symptoms a number of years ago. 

This last winter his wife woke up on the middle of the night and exited the condo building and started walking in the direction of their old house. She got as far as two subway stations and was apprehended by police. My brother slept through it all in a separate bedroom l.

Following that she had to be locked in her bedroom at night. It got to the point this summer when my brother and a combination of pcw's were tending to her around the clock. It became unsustainable. Her new quarters cost $9000 per month and he can visit daily. Luckily he bought insurance 30 years ago which pays half the amount of her care. 

This is just one story of aging but the more one learns, the more one can try to anticipate one's own future. Alzheimer's runs in my sister-in-law's family but luckily not in ours. We have our own challenges with prostate cancer, another disease that runs in families, and hypertension, another family trait.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Luv2play said:

... Her new quarters cost $9000 per month and he can visit daily. Luckily he bought insurance 30 years ago which pays half the amount of her care...

I learned something new today. I thought Canadians were covered for long-term care. In fact, I had always thought that not having to worry about being ruined by medical or health care bills was the biggest advantage of being Canadian over a US citizen. What, if any long-term coverage is provided in Canada? It won't even pay for part of the "new quarters"? In the US, the government won't kick in anything for long-term care until one has used up ALL of one's resources, including any house one might own. One basically has to be a homeless destitute before the government steps in. 

That's one of the reasons I have long-term care insurance. I want to make sure that whomever I'm with, be it "Chris" or someone else, if it happens that I need long-term care, won't be burdened and won't be afraid for his own well-being if I go to a place like Belmont Village. Also, if whomever I'm with is at least 55 by the time I pass away, he'll continue to collect 70% of my pension until he dies. 

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

A provider friend of mine, originally from Mexico, says that if he is ever forced to return to Mexico he will open a retirement home for gay men from the U.S., and it will include a staff of young men who will offer their "services" once a month as part of the rent.

He says I'm going to be his first customer.

[Rod Hagen]

It's unfair that hiring in Nursing Homes isn't an option.  Even if it weren't explicitly forbidden, the staff would scold the client, treat him differently.  And, let's be honest, even in the best of nursing homes your freedoms are significantly curtailed, particularly if you're living with disabilities and/or mobility issues.

In the world I imagine, a world that won't happen in my lifetime, escort brochures would be in every live-in Occupational and Physical Therapy facility, every facility for those living with cognitive issues who can make their own decisions about living and legal matters, and Assisted Care facilities of all kinds. 

Regardless of age or physical or cognitive (moderate)  impairment, If you're alive, your physical needs are otherwise met, then occasionally you're horny.

Assuming sex is an option, I could stand to live in an otherwise-well managed assisted care facility.

Until that happens, I will continue to read Jane Brody weekly and, sooner rather than later, adapt my apartment to make it Age-in-Place ready.

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by Rod Hagen

[+ SundayZip]

It's unfortunate that so many people think that "Senior Living Facility" is synomomous with unhappiness.  

My mother went into a Senior Living Facility a few years ago when it became difficult for her to maintain her house. The place had a full continuum of care, from independent living to nursing care.  She started in independent living which meant she had her own one bedroom apartment that she furnished herself. She could choose to use a whole range of services, or not.  She could eat in the dining room or cook for herself in her own kitchen.  She could hop on a shuttle bus to the grocery store or go on any number of field trips (shopping, movies, theater, concerts, festivals, lectures and more). She could have her hair and nails done at an onsite salon and then go flirt with the single men. She joined a book club and played bridge with new friends. She would reserve one of the community rooms to host potluck dinners for extended family. When she started to develop dementia and mobility issues, she (we) signed her up for additional services.  She eventually moved to the assisted living wing of the facility, but by then the place and grounds were her home and the adjustment was fairly easy.  

[Luv2play]

6 hours ago, Unicorn said:

I learned something new today. I thought Canadians were covered for long-term care. In fact, I had always thought that not having to worry about being ruined by medical or health care bills was the biggest advantage of being Canadian over a US citizen. What, if any long-term coverage is provided in Canada? It won't even pay for part of the "new quarters"? In the US, the government won't kick in anything for long-term care until one has used up ALL of one's resources, including any house one might own. One basically has to be a homeless destitute before the government steps in. 

That's one of the reasons I have long-term care insurance. I want to make sure that whomever I'm with, be it "Chris" or someone else, if it happens that I need long-term care, won't be burdened and won't be afraid for his own well-being if I go to a place like Belmont Village. Also, if whomever I'm with is at least 55 by the time I pass away, he'll continue to collect 70% of my pension until he dies. 

Since you asked, I'll explain that the Canadian health care system, as currently constituted, offers  medical care under the Canada Health Act (federal) as defined which includes a range of essential medical procedures and hospital care, all at no cost to the patient. Hence noone goes bankrupt because of cancer, heart attack, stroke etc. They can spend months or even years in an acute care bed and it is all free. Of course they try to move people out of those settings but no-one is kicked out.

As medical care is a provincial responsibility under our constitution, the federal government transfers money to all the provinces to help pay for these services. As time has gone on since the 1960s when Medicare was introduced, the proportion of federal aid has declined from 50 percent to something in the 20s. But costs have skyrocketed as Canadians live longer and medical procedures have become more expensive.

What the system doesn't cover are pharmaceuticals and other ancillary medical services deemed not essential as in life saving. Private insurance is offered by many employers for these types of services and people over 65 and the poor often get them free, depending on the province. Here in Ontario. all drugs on a formulary list are covered, but not something like Viagra.

If the government, either the federal or provincial, were to cover long term care fully, that would bankrupt the system unless income taxes were raised to levels seen in Scandinavia. As it is, subsidized spaces are offered to the less well off and the higher income groups are expected to provide for themselves either through insurance or their own means. 

I hope this offers some clarification of our system. A vast majority of Canadians support Medicare and would not have it any other way. 

[Luv2play]

5 hours ago, Unicorn said:

I learned something new today. I thought Canadians were covered for long-term care. In fact, I had always thought that not having to worry about being ruined by medical or health care bills was the biggest advantage of being Canadian over a US citizen. What, if any long-term coverage is provided in Canada? It won't even pay for part of the "new quarters"? In the US, the government won't kick in anything for long-term care until one has used up ALL of one's resources, including any house one might own. One basically has to be a homeless destitute before the government steps in. 

That's one of the reasons I have long-term care insurance. I want to make sure that whomever I'm with, be it "Chris" or someone else, if it happens that I need long-term care, won't be burdened and won't be afraid for his own well-being if I go to a place like Belmont Village. Also, if whomever I'm with is at least 55 by the time I pass away, he'll continue to collect 70% of my pension until he dies. 

Concerning your last paragraph, how does it work in California about who can claim rights of survivorship to a spouse? Do you have to be married or in a common law relationship recognized by the state? Can it just be the boyfriend "de jour" on the day you happen to croak? 

Also, if you don't die but need to go into long term care and have no insurance, what prevents you from transferring all your assets to your spouse or boyfriend, and then claim to be penniless to receive state aid. You see this all the time in bankruptcy cases. I have witnessed it personally both here in Canada and in Florida, although the latter case was almost 20 years ago just before bankruptcy reform was enacted to try to prevent such abuses.

[lonely_john]

17 hours ago, Unicorn said:

Also, if whomever I'm with is at least 55 by the time I pass away, he'll continue to collect 70% of my pension until he dies. 

What a catch.

[+ friendofsheila]

On 9/20/2021 at 4:46 PM, JoeMendoza said:

what would be some reasons why someone would not want to live in a similar facility?

Having to eat the same crappy food that everyone else loves.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Luv2play said:

Concerning your last paragraph, how does it work in California about who can claim rights of survivorship to a spouse? Do you have to be married or in a common law relationship recognized by the state? Can it just be the boyfriend "de jour" on the day you happen to croak? 

....

It has nothing to do with California law, but only with the pension rules according to my pension plan. For my hubbie to collect the lifetime 70% benefit, two things have to have happened: (1) We've been married for at least 2 years at the time of my death, and (2) he's at least 55 at the time of my death. Assuming a long-term relationship, I would certainly marry whomever I'm with by the time he turns 53. If he's not 55 when I die, he will get a small lump cash benefit. If we're not married, the small cash benefit goes to my estate. I think there may be a small benefit for a surviving spouse under social security as well, but this would be a much smaller amount. 

I'm not an attorney or benefits specialist, but I'm pretty sure that both the patient and the spouse have to be destitute for government to pick up the cost of a (cheap) nursing home (one that accepts Medicaid/MediCal, which are not the best nursing homes). I'm guessing that giving everything you own to your children might work, though, if you're still married that would put your spouse in a pickle unless they were quite friendly with the children. 

[Luv2play]

9 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

It has nothing to do with California law, but only with the pension rules according to my pension plan. For my hubbie to collect the lifetime 70% benefit, two things have to have happened: (1) We've been married for at least 2 years at the time of my death, and (2) he's at least 55 at the time of my death. Assuming a long-term relationship, I would certainly marry whomever I'm with by the time he turns 53. If he's not 55 when I die, he will get a small lump cash benefit. If we're not married, the small cash benefit goes to my estate. I think there may be a small benefit for a surviving spouse under social security as well, but this would be a much smaller amount. 

I'm not an attorney or benefits specialist, but I'm pretty sure that both the patient and the spouse have to be destitute for government to pick up the cost of a (cheap) nursing home (one that accepts Medicaid/MediCal, which are not the best nursing homes). I'm guessing that giving everything you own to your children might work, though, if you're still married that would put your spouse in a pickle unless they were quite friendly with the children. 

I take it then from what you say is that " common law" unions are not accepted by your pension arrangement. Here in Ontario, Canada, common law unions are given the same status as marriages. No marriage certificate is required but you must be able to demonstrate that you have lived together as spouses for a fixed period of time. My sister is in such a relationship and of course the two enjoy the tax benefits of married couples and other legislation conferring benefits on couples.

[Cooper]

Administrator’s Note:

Gentlemen, Remember, there is no politics in the Lounge. Please let me know If you would prefer this Thread to be moved to the Political Issues Forum . 

[Luv2play]

22 minutes ago, Cooper said:

Administrator’s Note:

Gentlemen, Remember, there is no politics in the Lounge. Please let me know If you would prefer this Thread to be moved to the Political Issues Forum . 

Is it kosher if we stick to discussing legal issues as opposed to political, which I know are verboten here?

[CuriousByNature]

Even though I am in Ontario, I am not too familiar with how the coverage here is for seniors because all of my relatives have died at home or in the hospital, without going into care.  Except for one aunt and one great uncle in BC who had different circumstances.  My aunt was quite well-off and went into something called 'independent living' at a pretty posh place when she was in her late 70s.  If I remember correctly she was paying about $6,000 per month and it was not subsidized at all because she didn't need care, but chose to be in a place where she could have all her meals made for her, socialize with others, etc.  She eventually died before needing any extra assistance.  My great uncle was not well off and went into assisted living when he could no longer live on his own.  It wasn't by choice, but by necessity.  The family was concerned because the costs were normally around $8000 a month and I think his pensions came to less that $2000 or $2500.  He was able to get a subsidized room at a care centre for either 85% or 90% of his net monthly income, if my memory is accurate.  He ended up needing even more care at a nursing home, and I assume that was subsidized as well.

The idea of spending retirement on a cruise ship has it's attractions, but I do not think the various article promoting it tell the whole story.  One cannot compare the costs of a nursing home and a cruise - a cruise will not provide the level of support that people in extended care or even assisted living might need.  It is more accurate to compare the costs of independent living communities to that of a cruise ship.  Even at a posh place, like where my aunt lived, the cost was about $6000 per month.  Some cruise companies say that the cruise fare runs around $100-$125 per day, but it is important to remember that these quotes are likely per person, double occupancy.  And may be for an inside cabin at those rates.  Single supplements are often 100% of the fare cost, so it is likely that a daily rate for a basic cabin could be in the $200 range quite easily, and even $300+ for a balcony stateroom.  Then there are port taxes and charges for every leg of the journey that must also be included.  Medical care on board may be available, but I do not believe it is generally included in the fare either.  Nor are most beverages included on most cruise lines - even most non-alcoholic beverages are charged on lines such as Princess, Holland America and Royal Caribbean.  On high-end lines like Oceania, Azamara, and Regent, there are many more things included - but expect to pay closer to $1000 per day.  I have heard that a lot of lines have rewards for frequent cruisers, such as free laundry and dry cleaning, but those benefits are likely outweighed by the additional costs such as fuel surcharges, automatic tipping and taking part in the odd shore excursion.  I have read that a single person cruising for a year on a mid-range ship, in an outside/balcony cabin (not a suite) should be prepared to spend approximately $100,000-$150,000 per year depending upon their discretionary spending onboard.  And no subsidy for those who don't have the necessary income   

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Luv2play said:

I take it then from what you say is that " common law" unions are not accepted by your pension arrangement. Here in Ontario, Canada, common law unions are given the same status as marriages. No marriage certificate is required but you must be able to demonstrate that you have lived together as spouses for a fixed period of time. My sister is in such a relationship and of course the two enjoy the tax benefits of married couples and other legislation conferring benefits on couples.

Common-law marriage is rare in the United States, and was abolished in California in the 19th Century:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States

Today, domestic common law marriages can be contracted in the following jurisdictions:

Colorado[6]
The District of Columbia[7]
Iowa[8]
Kansas[9]
Montana[10]
Oklahoma;[11] but see the note below regarding Oklahoma law being unclear.
Rhode Island[12]
Texas[13]

[Luv2play]

9 hours ago, Unicorn said:

Common-law marriage is rare in the United States, and was abolished in California in the 19th Century:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States

Today, domestic common law marriages can be contracted in the following jurisdictions:

Colorado[6]
The District of Columbia[7]
Iowa[8]
Kansas[9]
Montana[10]
Oklahoma;[11] but see the note below regarding Oklahoma law being unclear.
Rhode Island[12]
Texas[13]

Now I've learned something. The only jurisdiction in Canada that doesn't recognize common law unions is Quebec, which operates under a Civil Code(derived from the Code Napoleonic). I understand Louisiana also has the Code Napoleonic. A part of our French heritage on both sides of the border.