Posted on 12/24/2013 4:27:25 PM PST by Libloather
The Affordable Care Act was designed to dramatically increase the number of Americans who qualify for Medicaid. In fact, the ACA will literally FORCE many low income seniors onto Medicaid rolls as subsidies for regular ObamaCare plans are NOT available to those over 55 years of age who earn less than 138% of the federal poverty level ($15,856 for individuals; $21,403 for married couples). And without such subsidies, ObamaCare plans are generally far too expensive for older, low-income individuals or couples.
Why should any of this matter to those getting “free” healthcare via Medicaid?
Because: “If you’re 55 or over, Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses.”
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournalism.com ...
Already repealed in Washington and Oregon except for long-term care expenses. Possibly other states, too.
Ironically, if you’re FPL is that low, you’re not really going to have a lot of “estate” for the goobermint to take from you.
*there is no free lunch
Pennsylvania has had this “estate recovery” for medicaid for 20 years.
You mean like New Mexico and Utah thought a week ago that homosexual marriage was illegal? Wake up.
Not true at all. Many Expanded Medicaid enrollees have estates values in the hundreds of thousands. Incomes can be curtailed, you know.
TANSTAAFL!
What’s your point? (if you thought you were making one).
So if parents have been placed on a state Medicaid roll, the house, car or other assets they had intended leaving to their children will be attached by that state upon their death. A lien will be filed and full payment for those “free” healthcare services provided from the date of enrollment until the time of death will be confiscated from any available estate holdings.
You may presume that a state law makes X or Y illegal, but a federal judge can up-end that in an instant. No law is final as long as an activist judiciary and a dictatorial executive are on the move. Get my point now?
What interest would a federal judge have in ordering a state to engage in revenue-collecting activities to enhance its own budget? Your attempted comparison with activist social issue judges is apples and oranges and moot. If anything, liberal fed politicians and judges would side with the left wing state politicians who rescinded this. Get it?
Income can have very little to do with assets.
/johnny
You can live in a house that your grandparents built, on land that your grand-grandparents purchased. How much do that house and that land cost? A lot of money; but that's just numbers on paper. If you don't work the land you can be poor enough to get the "free" medical insurance.
You can get to that situation even if you are a billionaire. Just buy a few tons of gold, for all your money, and stash it in the basement. Do not sell; just let it sit there. You will have no income, but you would be still rich, and confiscation of your assets would be very profitable. Your time on this Earth may be limited by the people who will "proactively" clear the way in order to rummage through your valuables.
It's very dangerous to have people who can kill you *and* benefit from doing so. This was the case in Russia, in 1920's, when roving bands of Bolsheviks tortured people and robbed them of all that they had. Then they shared the gold with the state, in exchange for legal and military support.
Then they should use their estates to pay for their health care.
/johnny
I have been hollerin’ about this for months! Thank goodness people are noticing. Right now the age is 55. By fiat it could be 45, 35 or 25. This is the largest asset stealing in the history of the world.
And for all you toots who start pontificating about how people should pay their bills, well if the market forces were at work the bills would be affordable, but in this artificially propped market where CAT scans that cost 2000 dollars should be 100, no one should be forced to pay the inflated prices.
CA’s Gov. Moonbeam signed a law that requires ‘’domestic’’ workers to be paid time-and-a-half after 8 hrs. The folks that have looked after my Mom typically work 48 hours (with workmans compensation, medical benefitw, etc) and now they’re stuck with 8hrs. Their drive expenses have ‘bout trippled and the time they get to spend at home with family is reduced. My Moms costs are heading to 150 K from about 120.
Intended concequences??
GGRRRRR
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.