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.
Of course you didn't read the thread, otherwise you would know that no member of my family is on Medicaid.
I read it and you argued that if they were or were in danger of being it was a good thing to hide or redistribute assets so the taxpayers would have to pay. I disagree and find it less than honest.
This thread is about Medicaid. If "no one in your family is on Medicaid", what the heck are you whining about???????
Like I said, if the family is providing for the family member, and not the taxpayer, the government has no claim on their assets. Are you perhaps confusing Medicaid with Medicare?
No, I am not confusing Medicaid and Medicare. When I made my original post, I was pointing out that our family was MADE AWARE of the 5 year lookback to fund elder care, NOT that we actually were forced to do so to avoid paying for elder care. Because, up until that point, we were not familiar with that aspect of the law, we were a bit taken aback by the whole idea of selling assets to pay for anything government related. Which, in turn, caused us to have a serious discussion about transferring assets.
I happen to hold the position that anyone with assets that they have worked hard for should not just automatically buy into the idea that those assets must be used for elder care. I think the average person would prefer the kids keep the assets instead of the government, and in my opinion, that's what should be done.
I hope it does. Those who used the service should pay from any income or assets they have.
Those who hope they do not have to are simply creating a wealth transfer between taxpayers who would pay via hospital uncompensated care pools funded by gov't, and the heirs of the sick person's estate.
That last paragraph is a travesty that never should have existed.
The working poor are the ones that are hurt the most from this.. they worked hard and the government should make their siblings poorer?.. and give more freebees to the lazy.
Sure take the family farm, take their assets that have been in their family as their only way of keeping off welfare. God forbid if they let medicaid take their only means of supporting themselves.
Yet the illegals get FREE HEALTHCARE.. THEY JUST WALK IN AND GET IT FREE.
I read it and you argued that if they were or were in danger of being it was a good thing to hide or redistribute assets so the taxpayers would have to pay. I disagree and find it less than honest.
The OUTCOME is that taxpayers MAY have to pay for some elder care. The bigger issue to me is that family assets stay in the family. If you don't have any assets, like vast acreage as is the case with my family, then you really have nothing to worry about, right?
Who will pay for your care since you presumably have nothing to divest anyway?
We lost no assets in the year and a half it took my mother to die and we did nothing to hide any assets of her's or our family. You are operating under the usual extreme paranoia that is regularly exhibited by the honorable right wing.
The ONLY reason someone would try and kite the patient's assets would be to cheat the system and become eligable for Medicaid to avoid paying any part of the end of life medical bills which are a small pittance of the actual cost of care.
You may find that the long term nursing homes available for those on Medicaid in some states are nothing short of warehouses for the almost dead and staffed by minimum wage non english speaking personnel. In the end, you get what you pay for.
Yes, we as a family explored that option when the issue first came up but determined by consensus that it was a gross misuse of the system and was basically theft. We paid the freight for my mother's treatment and in the end the bills were very small considering the treatment and quality of care we got.
When they lowered my mother into the ground, we stood as a family knowing we did everything we could within the current system to sustain my mother's quality of life and preserve my mother's estate and held our heads high.
From your posts, it appears that you are more concerned about what's left after your mother passes than you are about the quality of her life while she goes through the process. Your priorities are backwards.
In order for you to presume someone to be "cheating," you first have to believe that the government has a right to your property to begin with.
We see things differently. You think the government has the first right of refusal, I think the property owner should have that right.
There is no middle ground here, because as a liberal you belive that government is the bearer of all things good, and that the citizens must conform to that theory. I disagree wholeheartedly.
The working poor are the ones that are hurt the most from this.. they worked hard and the government should make their siblings poorer.
Yes, they should be forced, as should all, to pay for EVERY SERVICE they receive.
Their siblings would not be poorer, unless you count a lack of deceptively enriched via estate transfers that should have paid for services rendered..poorer.
I DON'T.
PS, the government is not enriched here. It is just made whole for paying YOUR bills upfront.
The proper term for those avoiding paying back for services they used is DEADBEAT. BUM. SCAM ARTIST. THIEF.
You had an alternative. Let granny die at home, no painkillers, no meds, no docs. You did not use services than.
Yes, they should be forced, as should all, to pay for EVERY SERVICE they receive.
Their siblings would not be poorer, unless you count a lack of deceptively enriched via estate transfers that should have paid for services rendered..poorer.
I DON'T.
PS, the government is not enriched here. It is just made whole for paying YOUR bills upfront.
The proper term for those avoiding paying back for services they used is DEADBEAT. BUM. SCAM ARTIST. THIEF.
You had an alternative. Let granny die at home, no painkillers, no meds, no docs. You did not use services than.
Everyone should pay for the service they receive? Are you lost Bob? Are you now suggesting that ALL recipients of taxpayer-funded handouts should be forced to pay back for the services they received?
Everyone should pay for the service they receive? Are you lost Bob? Are you now suggesting that ALL recipients of taxpayer-funded handouts should be forced to pay back for the services they received?
I look forward to your response.
I would agree with seizing portions of future income streams of taxpayer-funded programs from recipients. I'd limit it, via the same percentage of income formulas commonly used for child care.
To not pay back, whether SNAP or Heathcare services = Theft.
Again, if they opt to have Granny die at home as an alternative..I'm all for giving them that choice.
Yes, they should be forced, as should all, to pay for EVERY SERVICE they receive.
Their siblings would not be poorer, unless you count a lack of deceptively enriched via estate transfers that should have paid for services rendered..poorer.
I DON'T.
PS, the government is not enriched here. It is just made whole for paying YOUR bills upfront.
The proper term for those avoiding paying back for services they used is DEADBEAT. BUM. SCAM ARTIST. THIEF.
Fact is the insurance costs that the paying people pay are jacked up for paying for the deadbeats who never saved, never worked and never owned anything ot PAID FOR ANYTHING!..If anything the working people are being robbed constantly.. so you say the siblings should get nothing for their hard working parents who had to pay high taxes, high insurance costs and till they are completely broke.. you want more people on welfare!
A country of poor slobs indebted to the government is what we will have when all our assets are taken by the government.. sounds quite communist to me.
I would agree with seizing portions of future income streams of taxpayer-funded programs from recipients. I'd limit it, via the same percentage of income formulas commonly used for child care.
To not pay back, whether SNAP or Heathcare services = Theft.
Let me make sure I understand correctly..... a person who receives SNAP or healthcare services paid for by taxpayers should be forced to pay it back. And if they don't, they're thieves?
Did you wake up on the ultra conservative side of the bed today? I don't think i've even heard a conservative go that far.
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.
