Hello again, Steve:
I hear sniveling.. But, I don't see any bills..
excon
|
Hello again, Steve:
I hear sniveling.. But, I don't see any bills..
excon
Good to see you still don't give a sh*t about the people being affected. By the way, it was your paper that noticed.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Expanded Medicaids fine print holds surprise: payback; from estate after death | Local News | The Seattle Times
Like your article says these policies have been in place since 1993.
Medicaid Estate Recovery
Medicaid Planning | ElderLawAnswers
That was a great article Speech, and raises many good questions but the key I think is the proper legal advice to make good planning decisions as there are MANY legal options to make sure it doesn't cost you more in the end. It was complicated for me when I had challenges to face with my own elders. States have different laws, and every state treats this differently.
The money I paid in good legal counsel, was VERY well spent, and turned out to be a necessity, not a luxury. Sadly some of my elders didn't have there affairs in order in the first place and it was a helluva mess. Planning ahead is the whole key.
Wow, just wow. There is no consequence worthy of of either of you getting pi$$ed off about. I have to say I'm actually proud of someone at Daily Kos...
Quote:
Why is it that Medicaid is pretty much cost free to use up to age 54 if you qualify, and suddenly becomes a collateral loan at age 55, for which a state agency will do its best to collect payment in full for every cost assigned? It seems clear that the Estate Recovery law did not anticipate the current circumstance with the ACA, and that putting the two laws together makes for a terribly unfair situation for some. What can we do to remedy this situation?
The fact that practically no one is talking about this makes me uneasy. (It has been mentioned a few times, for instance the comments section of the diary here.) At the very least what we are getting set up to do is implement an arbitrary, capricious, and regressive tax, that will only be paid by older, low income people. And we are putting this in motion at a time when there are lots of other difficulties to be worked out. I would like to make sure that we are not forgetting those who will find themselves stuck between their need for health coverage and the implications of the Medicaid Estate Recovery laws and programs.
If the government provides medical care or nursing home care to those with assets of $ 2,400 (not counting a home or car or certain other items such as prepaid funeral expenses etc), what is wrong with putting a lien on those assets to help offset the cost to the taxpayers?
Heirs can take their relatives into their own homes instead of requesting Medicaid to foot the nursing home bills or I assume they could supplement the income of those relatives to avoid them being forced into Medicaid healthcare. Those needing the care can sell their homes and other assets and reimburse their "sponsors" and never have to worry about liens.
Other folks over 62 can obtain reverse mortgages to finance nursing home or healthcare costs. The value of real estate, cars etc. should be used up before relying on the taxpayers. And if it isn't done upfront, why shouldn't it be reimbursed upon death?
Even your article points to states having the power to fix this glitch, if they so chose. My own research shows that all the governors are toying with a fix.
How many of these people aged 55 and over that suddenly qualify for Medicaid and have assets they intended to pass down to their heirs will understand this bit of fine print before signing on the dotted line? It need to be in big, bold letters that by accepting the government's "largesse" they intend to collect.
P.S. And for those not forced into Medicaid but qualify for a subsidy, will they come after that expense after you die?
Planning assumes that you aren't going to be compelled to go on the Obamacaid . Yeah I know lots of elderly who hide their assets from the government before they go in Medicaid . Generations of cheaters are created by government policy. Like Tal said ... keeps the lawyers and accountants employed .
Knowing the law isn't cheating, nor is it dishonest, and lawyers are experts at saving your ignorance of the law from biting you in the butt. That's why corporations, and governments employ the best lawyers money can buy.
Even your own religious institutions have legal council to protect their own interest, why shouldn't YOU (meaning all us ordinary people). Planning assumes anything can happen so you need to protect your own interest. The law has been on the books since 1993 so why not blame it on Obama?
Tom are you saying you know these tax cheats? no wonder your government enacted this draconian piece of legislation. You can't blame the government for the dishonesty of the people, rather you should blame the people for the dishonesty of the government.
Filing dishonest returns is theft by fraud
He isn't talking tax cheats, he is decrying the need for advanced estate planning. The wingers think it's a death panel, but it's a paid for benefit between you and your doctors, under the ACA, and even mitigates cost of those legal consultations if you are an executor of the estate of an elderly person.
Guess nobody read the links I provide previously. But that should be expected when you don't want to be fully informed and advised. I learned the hard way, but I did learn.
You're missing or, ignoring the point. Why should someone that makes too much money for Medicaid get subsidized health care, but the poorest who can only qualify for Medicaid get a loan they probably don't know they're signing up for?
These are exactly the kind of people your side is supposedly looking out for yet you're basically calling them, the POOR, idiots for not reading the fine print while excusing handouts for people that make more money. The irony is amazing.
Didn't you not provide a link where state governors and legislatures are working on this very problem, and are getting positive outcomes?
What are you doing about it?
Right, you expect the people who probably didn't know it was a loan payable on death who can least afford it to hire a lawyer while those who have more get a government handout. As I was saying...
Good point, speech. The govt. will eventually have to deal with that disparity. Class action lawsuit maybe.
They would possibly have to either make everyone who receives a subsidy subject to recovery of costs at death, or eliminate cost recovery for all, and elimination for all is not feasible. The ACA contained a provision for a panel to investigate adding nursing home coverage to the ACA. That panel adjourned after a short time because they could find no acceptable way to pay for it.
Medicaid expends about $ 400 billion per year on nursing home costs now and I can't find out how much they recover yearly. But stopping recovery would come close to what that panel considered previously, a non-starter.
Nancy Pelosi knew that there had been no planning, analysis, engineering of the ACA. The only answer (and it is the answer the bill's writers had in mind 5 years ago) will continue to be Single payer (per plan) coming out of the chaos.
Most states are already dealing with this disparity, since the state and federal government share the enforcement/collection responsibility.
Each state does it differently no doubt. But they are all presently doing so with only Medicaid patients. Now, others (non-Medicaid) will be receiving subsidies toward their healthcare and no obligation to pay anything back. Those folks new to Medicaid most likely won't realize what they have gotten into unless they have dealt with a parent/relative who was funded for nursing home by Medicaid. And even if they are apprised of all those details in the enrollment process, they have no other choice anyhow. Except maybe, having no healthcare as an option.
Medicaid patients 55 or older. I learned the hard way about medical costs and insurance coverage, long before the new law. Learning your options and exploring your opportunities to mitigate losses is so crucial to making an informed decision regarding YOUR situation, based on facts, and NOT just feelings (it can be both confusing, and overwhelming, I know).
If you didn't know before, then you are about to be educated. There are no easy solutions or quick fixes, but planning ahead is something I highly recommend before the emotional events occur.
It's a difficult complicated process to navigate, but better than being swept away under circumstances beyond your control.Quote:
And even if they are apprised of all those details in the enrollment process, they have no other choice anyhow. Except maybe, having no healthcare as an option.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:12 AM. |