Posted on 01/27/2014 8:25:49 AM PST by rktman
This was not in the fine print of the Affordable Care Act (that no one read), and there was nothing in it that changed the existing law from 1993. The ACA however, did expand the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid, so now there are more people from the ages of 55 to 65 whose estates could be on the hook for Medicaid expenses after the beneficiary dies.
This sounds like a cash grab to me. Many states have not changed the law to limit the amount of expenses the government can claim are owed for Medicaid, but Oregon and Washington have issued emergency rule changes.In Washington it now says that the state can only recover the cost of nursing home care for the 55-65 age groups.Oregon followed this path as well.However there are 23 other states that have expanded Medicare under Obamacare and they have not changed their estate recovery policies. This could end up with the deceased person’s heirs losing homes, property and other assets.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.townhall.com ...
death tax via fiat
You haven’t already? LOL!
If someone is going to require me to pay their medical bills while they’re alive, I see no reason not to ask for repayment from their assets after they pass on.
Democrats, communists (redundant?), and union members (redundant again?) excepted, of course.
Great post. Thanks. Socialism Is Legal Plunder - Bastiat
TOTALITARIANCARE (force) is a Pandora’s Box of deception, lies, plunder & death…the likes of which this republic has never seen.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happines
This is what happens when you PASS THE BILL FIRST, then find out what is in it next
I agree — IF those people are given the option to have insurance and pay for it beforehand. In some of these cases, they are being forced on it, or their children are, etc.
This is really just a trick by Obama to increase the entitlement rolls to ‘beyond-reach’ proportions and finally force this country into abject socialism.
DEPOPULATE socialists/totalitarians of both parties from the body politic.
CONFISCATE all of their assets for the unparalleled comprehensive damage they have done to the republic.
After all, it isn't really accumulated wealth unless one has paid their bills along the way.
I agree with you but the same principle should apply to wall street welfare crowd.
“This could end up with the deceased person’s heirs losing homes, property and other assets.”
Heirs losing inheritance. Not their own assets they’ve earned.
I think you mean medicaid”-that is what the masses think is “free” to everyone with no or little income, and obamacare has expanded that definition.
Absolutely. One of the outrages is execs at failed banks and corporations that the fed bailed out were paid not just exhorbitant salaries, but bonuses too.
Doctor “I have some bad news, you only have six months to live, and you’ll owe taxes after you die.”
Patient: “But I can’t pay those taxes.”
Doctor: “Ok, I’ll give you another six months.”
-With apologies to Henny Youngman
I meant Medicaid....thanks for the correction.
If you incurr the costs why shouldn't you be liable for them? The alternative is that someone else pays for your health care through their taxes.
Could someone explain: I thought you had to be penniless and have NO wealth other than the maximum $2,000 to qualify for Medicaid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.