OK Karen now you've went and gone toooooo far! LOL I agree with most here that poop is poop. I live on a lake and all my neighbors are just terrified of the goose poop. I started a new pile last year and a huge part of it was just that. I'd go around a very big area once a week and get 90% of what they left and wow you talking about being gone in a hurry in less than 6 months I couldn't even tell where the pile was because everything decomposed that fast. Strouper

Basically, all one needs to know is that the lookback period is five years (and they're dead serious, not 4 1/2 years, not 4 years and 10 months - a full 5 years). Deplete one's assets within that time, Medicaid eligibility would not come into play until the requisite wait/lookback period has been satisfied. My mother spent her last year in a long term care residence. She and my father both had revocable living trusts. On my father's death, his trust became a family trust for the benefit of my mother. And of course, my mother still had her own. It would have been incomprehensible for either my brother or me to attempt any spend down of either trust - assets were available for private pay for long term care. That's what assets are for - paying the freight, not insuring a legacy. I know that wasn't your intent; but, unfortunately, it is the intent for many.

My motto is "Always leave a p**ing male alone", including DH. And secondly, I am jealous that they can and I can't. I was once in Israel's great southern desert, the Negev, traveling by car with a girlfriend, and we had to go. So we stopped the car and hiked behind a tiny hill with a tiny bush on it. An oncoming truck squealed to a stop and the driver got out, carrying a rifle. He screamed at us "You crazy women, don't you know that there are Bedouin men around here? Next time, hold it in!" Then he stood there with his rifle until we finished, adjusted ourselves, and slinked back to our car embarrassed as heck.

My husband's a GC, and he'd NEVER write a contract absolving himself from damage done by his subs or him. If they damage something, they're responsible. That's why he carries liability insurance. And more importantly, that's why he's so careful! But as Plllog points out, some clients do try to pin everything on the contractor. Sometimes it's pre-existing damage and they're intentionally trying to mistreat the contractor; more often it's unrelated damage or normal wear and tear. Probably most often, it's expanding the scope of the job to cover a greater amount of work with no increase in compensation. The old "behind-the-wall or under-the-floor" issue. DH was renovating a small room for a client once and suggested as a last-minute add-on that he replace the old yellowed wall outlet and faceplate so it would look as nice and fresh as the rest of the room. $15 add-on. As it happens, the outlet was GFI, but the wiring wasn't -- wasn't even up to code. DH explained to the client that the wiring (which hadn't been touched) wasn't up to code, and that his professional code of ethics forbade him from replacing the outlet and switchplate - so he'd deduct the $15 from the contract. Client tried to insist that for $15, he had to replace the wiring and everything on that line, bringing it up to code at the same time -- all for $15, like it implied in the contract or he'd sue. And he was a lawyer. Very ugly scene... (DH refused, client didn't sue - but we had a heck of a time getting paid.) What sometimes CAN happen is that plumbing work 'shakes up' grit and grime in the lines that then flows downstream and clogs other pipes or fixtures. Or, slight vibrations on brittle pipes can cause leaks in other areas of the house. A good contractor will address these issues up front so the client can know what to expect.