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.
Do you mean "Medicaid?" Again, this is nothing new.
Read the article..
But now that Medicaid enrollment requirements have been relaxed, more people with assets but low income are joining the program or being forced into it. For instance, a couple in their 50s who, say, retired early after losing jobs in the bad economy may have assets but show a very low income. Under Obamacare, if their income is low enough to qualify for Medicaid, they must enroll in Medicaid unless they want to buy totally unsubsidized coverage in the now-inflated individual market. As teh Times notes, this is no small difference:
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.
What happened to "personal responsibility"? What you are saying is that you want the government to take care of your healthcare. Are you fully in favor of UHC?
What happened to "personal responsibility"? What you are saying is that you want the government to take care of your healthcare. Are you fully in favor of UHC?
People are forced into Medicare -they are not allowed to use exchanges and they are not told that it is a loan.
What happened to transparency?
A legitimate news source about how the government is really going to start seizing assets and people shrug it off with out bothering to read it.
But now that Medicaid enrollment requirements have been relaxed, more people with assets but low income are joining the program or being forced into it. For instance, a couple in their 50s who, say, retired early after losing jobs in the bad economy may have assets but show a very low income. Under Obamacare, if their income is low enough to qualify for Medicaid, they must enroll in Medicaid unless they want to buy totally unsubsidized coverage in the now-inflated individual market. As teh Times notes, this is no small difference:
As far as Medicaid recouping from assets, that is nothing new. After someone, who has collected SS has died, the amount that person was paid comes out of the sale of the house or other assets.
Take you scenario above. What would that same couple, who retired early, do for healthcare insurance if ObamaCare did not exist?
Let me make sure I understand this post. You are advocating using the government teet (i.e. taxpayers money) to pay for long term care instead of personal responsibility. Wouldn't this preference be consistent with socialized healthcare?
I'm advocating for a persons ability to keep the assets they've earned through blood, sweat, and tears..... and doing whatever it takes to keep those assets out of the reach of the Federal Government. Make of that whatever you will.
I'm advocating for a persons ability to keep the assets they've earned through blood, sweat, and tears..... and doing whatever it takes to keep those assets out of the reach of the Federal Government. Make of that whatever you will.
You want to have your cake and eat it, too. Personal responsibility sounds good until it costs you something. Then you want the government to take care of you.
Either pony up for UHC or pay your own bills. This is not a trick question.
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.
Who do you think should pay for those health-related services if not the person or the person's family, then, Aero? (I think we all know the answer to that question.)
Let me make sure I understand this post. You are advocating using the government teet (i.e. taxpayers money) to pay for long term care instead of personal responsibility. Wouldn't this preference be consistent with socialized healthcare?
Yep, yep, yep!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
What happened to "personal responsibility"? What you are saying is that you want the government to take care of your healthcare. Are you fully in favor of UHC?
Supposedly at the federal level. However, about 25 states are not expanding MediCaid and they do appear to have asset test. The other states that are expanding I am not even completely sure if they are eliminating asset test because states have a lot of say-so on how they implement.
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.
