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.
AeroGuyDC has spent more time and effort discussing his grandparent's wealth and 'protecting' their 'acreage' from the federal government than he probably has spent in the last decade figuring out how to earn his own wealth.
And he expects the government to pay their medical bills while the family 'assets' stay entrenched and protected for him and future generations.
Oh FCK!
And I though people on welfare and EBT cards were bad. . . .
To be fair about it, everyone who has to end up being the administrator for a relative dealing with "end of life" issues has to see the elephant in the room and deal with it.
Having been there on a recent first hand basis, it was one of my objectives that I wrote up for all family members.
Number one was "Provide the best quality of life for mom"
Number two was "Preserve the family finances as much as possible in the process"
There are so many government programs we never participated in as a family that you don't know what's available unless you ask the right questions of the right people. Alzheimer's Assoc. Read all the books. Do online research. As my mother's health administrator, I had to take care of the issues and decide on how we were going to handle the situation.
I'll Mea Culpa and admit that I asked the question, "What about Medicaid?" but dismissed it immediately as it was too big a physical, financial and moral stretch.
In the end, we went with her Medicare and BCBS supplemental.
At first all we needed was a certified nurse to come to the house for 4 hours a day 4 days a week. Using Medicare system our costs were less than 4.00 and hour. Once she was certified "Not responding to treatment" she received 24/7 care by a certified nurse. In the end, it cost us quite a few thousand in co-pays and deductibles but nowhere but a small fraction of our ability to pay and it was all within the existing system.
As a confirmed C-D liberal, I had to take a Hall's Mentholatum to keep from choking while I write this next part.
There is more than a grain of truth to what AeroguyDC is talking about but because of the veil of partisanship it's hard to grasp in the telling and harder to grasp in the hearing.
Here is his valid point.
The Medicaid system we're talking about has been around for a long time, as has been the means testing and forfeiture requirements.
The nasty thing that the ACA does is change the criteria of eligibility from the base line poverty level to 133% of the poverty level. That brings a whole other financial demographic into the asset forfeiture situation. The sad fact about the law, is that if those who apply for the ACA meet a certain income threshold of 133% then they are automatically shunted to the state Medicaid site, thus making their assets liable to forfeiture if they get a severe illness. Although this has been the case with private hospital bills through the court system, the ACA increases the pool of people liable to forfeiture through government action rather than civil proceedings. I understand why this would make a conservative jump. To be fair though, the official poverty level is way too low and hasen't been adjusted in quite a while. 133% is a fair figure to guage who should qualify for full Medicaid coverage. Which is something most those in that financial demographic don't actually have.
Something that needs to be addressed in one of the numerous fixes required to make this ACA turkey to work.
It's really sad, isn't it? They just don't get what is coming.
Now, I as a conservative constitutionalist am fundamentally opposed to socialized programs in basic principle. I don't think anyone has the right to take what others have earned, to give to someone else ... even those who really are in need of help, and deserving of it. That is what charity is for, and Americans have always been a very charitable people.
However, with that said, the current state of the nation and the rampant fraud in the financial establishment and it's unholy and illegal union with government changes the ball game entirely. The same can be said of the medical establishment, which is as crooked, and worse than the Wall Street gangsters.
Consequently, I'm in favor of all public assistance programs, and especially those to aid the elderly, and I am dead against any type of government grabs of people's private assets to pay for the outrageous and artificially inflated costs of medical care. People's homes and meager assets should be exempt from the clutches of governent/Corporate cronyism theft.
Once integrity can be restored to the system, from the top down, then we can demand personal responsibilty from the rest ..... not before.
Absolutely agree. You clearly stated what I've been trying to say in this thread.
Yes, my grandmother was very ill (near death) a few years ago and that's when my family became familiar with the 5-year lookback law that prevents people from divesting assets to immediate family members when someone gets sick. Luckily, my grandmother is still alive and her assets have been transferred over to my mother and her siblings. If she makes it past the 5 year mark, those assets will be untouchable and legitimately owned by my mother, etc.
I highly recommend anyone who seeks to protect family assets from being taken by the government to pay for health-related services in the sunset years that they divest assets sooner rather than later. There needs to be a 5 year gap between divestiture and a related death in the family. Otherwise, Uncle Sam gets it.
It appears that Obamacare took this old provision of the law and injected it with steroids. That's shameful.
That's rather un-conservative of you isn't it? Expecting to keep money and have the government pay for your healthcare?
Consequently, I'm in favor of all public assistance programs, and especially those to aid the elderly, and I am dead against any type of government grabs of people's private assets to pay for the outrageous and artificially inflated costs of medical care..
Simple: Do NOT use medical care. Practice what you preach. People have died at home since the beginning of time. By doing so, you are neither contributing to Big Med or leeching off of others by using it, than not paying your tab.
Absolutely agree. You clearly stated what I've been trying to say in this thread.
Many seniors lose their homes every year because they didn't pay their property taxes and the resident government officials sold it on the courthouse steps for the amount of the property taxes owed. Happens all the time. Has been happening for over a hundred years. What's different about this?
If you got money, spend it on your families and yourself. No need to think you 401k is gonna be there 30yrs from now. It's over. Our country is one major event away from the final tipping point.
Yep!! You can legally transfer $10K/year of your estate tax free to anyone you want. The key is to start early to divest yourself of your lifes earnings before some leech gets it courtesy of the government.
just put your childs name on everything you own before that, and give them POA before you go into Medicaid.
Wow!4 pages and mostly ranting and raving about Medicaid payouts for the elderly and very little about the situation brought up by the original post.
My understanding is this....
Scenerio
A mid-50s couple that formerly had a decent job which allowed them to buy a house got let go, has run out of UE benefits, taking any jobs possible to maintain the mortgage and survive gets pushed into Medicaid when they try to buy insurance.
During this time , thousands of dollars in medical bills are incurred...maybe the husband had a heart attack, whatever.
A year later they..or one of them...finds a good job that takes them out of Medicaid eligibility but they have to relocate to take it. They now find that there's lien on the house and if they sell, they lose every penny of equity and may still owe an outstanding amount.
Is this the help the ACA was supposed to provide?
Would they have been better off to go without insurance and make payment arrangements as long as they were going to end up paying for it anyway?
Wow!4 pages and mostly ranting and raving about Medicaid payouts for the elderly and very little about the situation brought up by the original post.
My understanding is this....
Scenerio
A mid-50s couple that formerly had a decent job which allowed them to buy a house got let go, has run out of UE benefits, taking any jobs possible to maintain the mortgage and survive gets pushed into Medicaid when they try to buy insurance.
During this time , thousands of dollars in medical bills are incurred...maybe the husband had a heart attack, whatever.
A year later they..or one of them...finds a good job that takes them out of Medicaid eligibility but they have to relocate to take it. They now find that there's lien on the house and if they sell, they lose every penny of equity and may still owe an outstanding amount.
Is this the help the ACA was supposed to provide?
Would they have been better off to go without insurance and make payment arrangements as long as they were going to end up paying for it anyway?
Thank you for explaining the REAL issue. The OP really didn't get into that scenario and the focus has been on end of life care. The scenario you bring up could apply to someones in their 20s-40s as well as the 50+ one you describe. The odd part of OCA is that they have "promoted" a great expansion of Medicaid and the people this applies to, and worse, they penalize people in states that do not follow this route. In states that did not follow blindly along with Obamacare and expand Medicaid and it's reduce it's eligibility requirements (increased the income level covered) get no subsidies on the OC-mandated insurance premiums. So the people just out of poverty, who are working to improve themselves and get ahead are forced to pay the full premiums of Obamacare mandated insurance. While those that make more, enough to be out of the "expanded Medicaid" income cutoff, do get subsidies. The people that passed this law, without doing their job and making the minimal effort to find out what is in it...are worthy of contempt.
Wow!4 pages and mostly ranting and raving about Medicaid payouts for the elderly and very little about the situation brought up by the original post.
My understanding is this....
Scenerio
A mid-50s couple that formerly had a decent job which allowed them to buy a house got let go, has run out of UE benefits, taking any jobs possible to maintain the mortgage and survive gets pushed into Medicaid when they try to buy insurance.
During this time , thousands of dollars in medical bills are incurred...maybe the husband had a heart attack, whatever.
A year later they..or one of them...finds a good job that takes them out of Medicaid eligibility but they have to relocate to take it. They now find that there's lien on the house and if they sell, they lose every penny of equity and may still owe an outstanding amount.
Is this the help the ACA was supposed to provide?
Would they have been better off to go without insurance and make payment arrangements as long as they were going to end up paying for it anyway?
I agree with you and in most states they will change the law with regards to people on Medicaid and receiving normal medical care. Asset recovery for those over 65 for long term care has been around for 20 years. How should it be different for those between 55 and 64? By the way one way around the Medicaid problems is just to sign up for the regular ACA which would end up being less than $100 per month for a couple. However anyone who goes into long term care over the age of 55 and is on Medicaid should expect to go through their assets first as has been the case for many people over the past 20 years.
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.
