Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the experience depends on what your prior situation was, apparently what state you are in and your prior medical history.
Indeed. State does matter, whether or not one is going from employer subsidized plan, or an obsolete private plan to the ACA matters.
Many have benefitted (especially the low-income and otherwise uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions), others (fewer in number, so far) have been disadvantaged. We'll see what happens when the employer mandate kicks in for real.
Further, I heard today unbelievably inaccurate - outright lies, actually - from a so-called 'expert' (in reality she was yet another Fox CLOWN) who says the GOP plans provide for state high-risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions - "so the safety net is there." Never mind that in the past, those high-risk pools were going broke, not to mention unaffordable for most, and many had waiting lists.
Then she went on to talk about the ACA "decimating Medicare" - another total falsehood - and "end of life counseling" being in reality a DEATH PANEL.
These people should be off the air.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 08-18-2015 at 04:06 PM..
No. You've got it wrong. Medicaid will cover medical expenses, including all kinds of accidents and illnesses, without seeking reimbursement EXCEPT in the case of long-term nursing home care.
Umm... I live in California. They go beyond what the Feds mandate which is what you are stating above^^ The Feds command they attempt to re-imburse them for these costs if there is a probate involved. Trusts no, it's optional.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid know California seeks re-imbursement for ALL Medical expenses, whether a person even used the medical care or not. They may have never used it once.... perfectly healthy and still owe on average, at the lowest $10,000 for 55-64 years of age. Yes i did my homework.
Quote:
Taking Medicaid is not a risk to your estate unless you are one of the unlucky people who end up in long-term nursing facility care before age 65, which is hideously expensive and has to be paid for somehow.
Again, here it is not a RISK. IT IS A LOAN. We aren't playing here, it is a LOAN they will want paid back if you have an estate worth it to them. Or retirement funds...
Quote:
Private health insurance won't pay for long-term nursing home care, either; you need to purchase special long-term care insurance to provide for that (if you can afford to). Either that or spend your life savings, sell your house, etc. to pay for the long-term nursing facility care. So people with private health insurance and no long-term care insurance who end up needing long-term care end up in the same boat, financially, as people who had Medicaid pay for that care.
Well not really. They do not seek re-imbursement for IHSS which is the program which assists seniors and disabled to stay in their homes. So that funding will not be taken out of your estate but it is only for the very poor.
Last edited by OutdoorsyGal; 08-18-2015 at 11:32 PM..
Umm... I live in California. They go beyond what the Feds mandate which is what you are stating above^^ The Feds command they attempt to re-imburse them for these costs if there is a probate involved. Trusts no, it's optional.
Sorry to hear that. My state does not seek to recover any Medicaid expenses beyond long-term care expenses. My attitude is, if I end up needing long-term care and have no resources to pay, I am grateful that Medicaid would shoulder the considerable expense of long-term care, and after I die the state is welcome to recover whatever expenses they can from my estate.
Quote:
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid know California seeks re-imbursement for ALL Medical expenses, whether a person even used the medical care or not. They may have never used it once.... perfectly healthy and still owe on average, at the lowest $10,000 for 55-64 years of age. Yes i did my homework.
If a person never uses Medicaid once for medical care, but is insured for 10 years, isn't $10,000 a fairly low rate to pay for that insurance? Compared to what most people pay in health insurance premiums, $83/month is fairly cheap. And you don't have to pay it until you're dead! That sounds like a deal to me.
Quote:
Again, here it is not a RISK. IT IS A LOAN. We aren't playing here, it is a LOAN they will want paid back if you have an estate worth it to them. Or retirement funds...
If a deceased person leaves a pile of assets from which medical expenses could be recovered, I'm not seeing why reimbursement from the estate is a bad thing. The state won't attempt to recover assets in cases where there is a surviving spouse or minor or disabled children. Certain other specific scenarios disallow recovery of medical expenses by the state. If Medicaid lays out cash to pay for a decade of medical care, doesn't the state have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers to see what it can recover from the estates of Medicaid clients who've received a decade of free care?
Of course, I would prefer that health care be provided as a right to all citizens, free at the point of service, under a National Health insurance scheme like that in the UK. But since we in the USA are forced to function under a fee-for-service system, those bills have to be paid sometime. After death is pretty much the most convenient time to do so.
Quote:
Well not really. They do not seek re-imbursement for IHSS which is the program which assists seniors and disabled to stay in their homes. So that funding will not be taken out of your estate but it is only for the very poor.
IHSS won't help if you are rendered basically helpless by something like Alzheimer's and need care/supervision around the clock. This is a situation that lands many vulnerable patients in long-term nursing facilities, that cost of which is unbelievably expensive. If the state can recover some of that expense from the estate of a deceased patient, I think that's fair.
I agree Medicaid SHOULD be recovering their costs when possible. Why should the rest of us pay for it when the patient was able to pay at least a portion of the costs? One of the reasons Medicaid is a failure in the first place is because Medicaid patients otherwise have no skin in the game.
If a deceased person leaves a pile of assets from which medical expenses could be recovered, I'm not seeing why reimbursement from the estate is a bad thing.
I don't find it ok to force someone to loose their home in case they happened to need medical care.
We've traded for all of our medical care, via my business most of our life. Instead, we chose to spend our money eating right and exercising hardcore. That's better than insurance.
But now that our inlaws got ill, we were forced to care for them ok ..fine no biggie. In their 90's. But they have decided, big brother, to force us to take financial risks far beyond the small health risk we would have, which is more of a fluke. It's communism.
BUT NOW that this healthcare law went through, and my husband is turning 55, it puts us in a tight spot. Our State is NOT honorable, no doubt the bill will be embellished as I've seen it be with two victims already.
You do not force someone to take a loan out on their house 'In case" they get sick. That in itself, is sick.
Because of a fear we might get sick. We are not like the rest of society who eats like pigs, junk and then feels we are like them and are going to get sick. Well lightening could strike but we have no insurance for that either. And that is about as likely as it would be for people like us to get ill. We went 5 years only exercising 1-2 days per week out of the last 25 years.
The Indian Health Service, the services it provides, costs the state SO VERY LITTLE per person. About half of what the Veterans get which prior to the ACA, was pretty crappy. Yet they stretched their dollar... kept many people healthy despite the old addage "Don't get sick after JUNE" ours I joined one year ago to avoid the ACA although I have medical insurance that pays my clinic in full so it's not used. But being Indian, the indians take better care of their own than others do. Obama should've implemented this model for all of America.
I agree Medicaid SHOULD be recovering their costs when possible. Why should the rest of us pay for it when the patient was able to pay at least a portion of the costs? One of the reasons Medicaid is a failure in the first place is because Medicaid patients otherwise have no skin in the game.
Except that is not what is happening here. They are stealing WHOLE ESTATES from children otherwise, could get out of the cycle of poverty. It costs us MORE.
Also if the person had the ability to pay, then they wouldn't be in full medicaid anyhow. They'd be paying.
Its called a SHARE OF COST Medicaid meaning they pay fully for their own health care up to $500, then, and only then, does Medicaid come into play. OUr state almost absolutely refuses to sign people up for it but it is there. And should be utilized
I haven't noticed any difference at all...but I kept my Private insurance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- I remember all the death panel talk, etc. - all I can say is, ACA was a lifesaver for me money-wise.
