It isn’t ‘taking’ for taking’s sake. They are recouping costs from providing care for that person.
Personally, I am against the hiding of assets to qualify for Medicaid. Children/heirs have nothing to do with it IMO.
It isn’t ‘taking’ for taking’s sake. They are recouping costs from providing care for that person.
Personally, I am against the hiding of assets to qualify for Medicaid. Children/heirs have nothing to do with it IMO.
If a person can pay for a different policy and “wants’ a different policy than medicaid then YES it is taking for takings sake.
On the other hand if they are indeed hiding assets for the purpose of defrauding the Government for the purpose of receiving ‘free medical care’. Then having assets seized after death to pay for the treatments given is a good thing. But taking ALL of the assets no matter how little was paid out for medical care, no... once again the ‘balance’ is thrown off.
Bottom line here though is that this is on the surface a naked forced redistribution of accumulated assets so as to prevent generational transfer of them.
Personally, I am against the hiding of assets to qualify for Medicaid. Children/heirs have nothing to do with it IMO.
Obviously it isn't an act out of spite by the govt. But you can call it "recouping costs" but it is still the shifting around of money that I'll bet 98% of medicaid participants don't know about. Children/heirs have everything to do with it if the fine print is not repeatedly and loudly explained. The only assets you can "hide" are those that were earned 3 years before applying to medicaid excluding dwelling and associated land.