Posted on 02/16/2016 11:14:51 AM PST by Twotone
They should have done what many people do. Put the house and any other property in the kids name and own nothing on paper.That way there is nothing to recoup.
Do people have a choice?
If its ‘insurance’ then why is the reimbursement necessary?
California has the same thing if you receive MediCal after age 55
...
Doesn’t the estate claim basically effect only people who are receiving permanent care for the rest of their lives?
I believe the term is “Preferential Transfer” and the government can go back on your heirs for transfers to them before you die, if you die within a certain period of time after the transfer. It used to be three years, but it may have been extended to five or seven because of 0bamacare.
As you stated, long before you retire, make sure you have your ducks in a row with a competent financial advisor. The main assets most Americans have are their homes and their 401 retirement savings. Both need to be sheltered by astute estate planning. And there are ways of doing this.
The biggest rip-off is the “retirement community” or “assisted living community.” Basically, they are cruise ships that never leave their dock. And they carry huge liens on your estate; they are designed to take 100% of any inheritance you would have considered leaving for your kids. Their lobbyists are quite effective, too. In many states, there is legislation limiting the number of assisted living communities to drive up the costs, and they stand second in line behind the funeral home and ahead of the government when it comes to taking your estate.
“Lourey is working on legislation that would remove the estate claim provision for people using Medical Assistance for health care, “
—
Oh,terrific.
Now someone that owns a couple of million dollar mansions but has a low income can leave the property to their kids while the taxpayer pays for their medical insurance.
What a country.
.
“Baby boomers were taken care of by their parents until the parents died; ...”
Source, please. I gladly contributed $1200 per month towards my mother’s assisted-living rent until she died because I didn’t want her to live in a Medicare/Medicaid facility. I know many others my age who did the same. Not all of us children of the so-called Greatest Generation had a large (or any) inheritance. $64,000 is the median amount.
And many of us boomers are still subsidizing our adult children, so we are often paying out to both generations.
“I was under the impression this is the case in most states.”
It’s true in states that have accepted the federal “deal” to expand Medicaid eligibility in exchange for additional federal subsidies for 10 years. It used to be the case that Medicaid eligibility was tied to assets, and many elderly would spend down those assets to become eligible. Now, if you live in a state that accepted the “deal,” more people are eligible because the asset test was removed, but your assets are pledged against the Medicaid assistance you receive.
Thank you. Yes, it likely has moved to 5 years. I ran into the 3 year lookback when my mom had to go to a nursing home. They let me keep $6k between my brother and I and funeral expenses that we made prepaid arrangements for. Her costs exceeded 6k per month here in Pa.
Believe it or not, I DID consult and eldercare attorney well before it got so bad she had to be moved to a nursing home...and learned nothing of this from them. She passed in 2006.
The guy with the McMansion already has a tax advisor who has sheltered his estate, and he probably doesn’t need the government assisted medical care anyway.
This is a sucker’s bet for what remains of the lower-middle class, formerly known as “kulaks.” We’ll make health care prohibitively expensive, offer up a “government program” to assist with the cost, and then take your property from you.
Welcome to the kolkhoz, comrade!
People certainly have a choice, no one forced you to sign up for medicare. Though probably under Obamacare you would probably be fined if you didn’t have it... thanks again Establishment Republicans and John Roberts.
Medicare is government health care for the poor and indigent, the user isn’t covering their costs, even if they have a premium it doesn’t cover the costs... they basically are making an agreement with the state, we’ll make sure you get health care, because you are poor, but when you die, if you have any assets, we can take them to recover the cost we spent on your care....
Why does anyone think they get a free lunch?
The basic theory of Socialism is that all money belongs to the state. They only allow you to use some of it for awhile, IF you stay on their good side.
Sorry to have to advise this is I think pretty much standard procedure — a tiny bit of fiscal prudence in a government giveaway program — you know, like so many folks always want to prevent waste and giving taxpayer money to folks who don’t need it, all that sort of thing.
1. Those entitlement programs are supposed to be funded with tax dollars.
2. As we age the options for insurance decline.
3. People get forced into these programs with no other options.
You have to do that 5 years before you go into Medicaid. In 5 years, a lot of really bad things can happen like a divorce.
Its not about a free lunch. Its about the govt doing its damndest to extract any and all wealth from people upon death.
That is my point, thank you.
Don’t confuse Medicare with Medicaid. Medicare is health care for the elderly, for which social security recipients are eligible for participation at age 65. In theory, Medicare is paid for by payroll contributions, but it is done under the same Ponzi scheme as social security. But I do not believe Medicare recipients have liens placed against their property for participation in the program.
Medicaid is the program of health care for the indigent, where age is not a consideration but income is. If one receives Medicaid, it is under the assumption that they are too poor to afford medical care through their own financial resources. It is under that theory that the government places liens on any property they own.
My understanding is ANY Medi-Cal benefits paid after age 55 are subject to the State seeking reimbursement/recovery, see below from the link I put up earlier.
III. What Happens After I Die If I Received Medi-Cal?
After the Medi-Cal beneficiary’s death, the State can make a claim against the estate of an individual who was 55 years of age or older at the time he or she received Medi-Cal benefits or who (at any age) received benefits in a nursing home, unless there is a surviving spouse, registered domestic partner, or a minor, blind or disabled child. Thus, if there are any assets left in the estate of the deceased beneficiary, Medi-Cal will seek to be reimbursed for benefits paid. It is important to note that, even if you received Medi-Cal at home, any benefits paid while you were 55 years of age or older will be subject to Medi-Cal recovery.
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.