Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Obamacare ‘Shotgun Wedding’—Marry or Lose Your Home
The Fiscal Times ^ | December 19, 2013 | Edward Morrissey

Posted on 12/19/2013 7:07:25 AM PST by stevie_d_64

The problem with solutions is that few of them tend to be perfect, even if they act in a mostly benign manner. Actions produce reactions, a principle as true in politics as it is in physics, and those tend to multiply when solutions increase in complexity.

The nature of these unintended consequences changes dramatically when complex “solutions” turn out to be poorly designed and incompetently administered.

The rollout of the Affordable Care Act has provided many real-world examples of this, but perhaps none so “unintended” as the consequences discovered by the Seattle Times this weekend. Carol Ostrom, The Times’ health reporter, told the story of 62-year-old newlyweds Sofia Prins and Gary Balhorn, who weren’t exactly the models of wild, starry-eyed romantics.

Their nuptials were motivated by a stronger desire to keep their house out of the hands of the federal government, thanks to a little-known key provision of Obamacare. Their meager incomes made them eligible for a federally subsidized health plan, and their assets would be protected.

(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: abuse; aca; echanges; exchanges; fraud; medicaid; medicaidestate; medicaidexpansion; medicaidloan; obamacare; opposition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: Mears

Once upon a time I was an eligibility worker for MediCal, California’s Medicaid. If someone was not living in their home it was considered an asset that could be sold to pay for their own care. Then the amount received had to be documented down to $2500 before they became eligible.
That’s fair. What I didn’t consider fair was that a 20 yr old with 3 kids could walk in and boom be eligible because of the kids.
Someone worked and saved all their lives and had to get rid of everything to get help while a gal who laid on her back and pumped out kids got it all for nothing.
There should be a way to fix it all but our politicians don’t want to.
I quit after a particularly agregious case. Just couldn’t take it anymore.


21 posted on 12/19/2013 8:05:26 AM PST by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

I see an increase in arson cases coming. What are they going to do, exhume bodies and put them on trial?


22 posted on 12/19/2013 8:08:54 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64
The election cannot come quickly enough...

They aren't going to lose any elections unless there are throngs of angry people rushing to the polling booths.

You saw Harry Reid yesterday. Fully confident about the next elections. Because he knows the outcome. They stole the last one for him, likely.

23 posted on 12/19/2013 8:14:19 AM PST by riri (Plannedopolis-look it up. It's how the elites plan for US to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

You know who paid the subsidies - you and I did.


24 posted on 12/19/2013 8:21:13 AM PST by Pecos (The Chicago Way: Kill the Constitution, one step at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve

We are heading there now.


25 posted on 12/19/2013 9:09:32 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve
I read that in England, they have seven “classes”. The highest class is the “elite” class. They are defined by their having something like 140k pounds of wealth. That’s what upper middle class used to be — a nice house and a nest egg. The Elite are only 6% of the English population.

Are you sure about your figures? £140,000 in assets (vulgo: wealth) is really not very much.

Or did you perhaps mean to say annual income?

On the other hand, £140,000 in assets is consistent with your statement about that corresponding to "[...] what upper middle class used to be — a nice house and a nest egg."

Based on data from the HMRC for 2004–2005, about 10% of all households in the U.K. had assets amounting to at least £176,221.

Regards,

26 posted on 12/19/2013 9:13:02 AM PST by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mears

You are, of course, correct about Medicaid and its historical claim on assets. The difference is that there is a new push to get people into Medicaid based solely on income. The moral/ethical concern is whether or not the people signing up for Medicaid have been informed about this claim on their assets they are creating by having their care provided by Medicaid.

Can you imagine the outrage if an insurance company had a fine print provision that granted a lien on the policyholder’s assets. The federal government just writes such a claim in the statute with no disclosure required.

Suppose there is an elderly couple who are caring for a disabled child in their home. When the last spouse of the couple dies the federal government steps in and claims the home and kicks the child to the curb. Again, as long as people go into this arrangement with eyes wide open and fully informed they get what they bargained for. But how many will be informed and made to understand?


27 posted on 12/19/2013 9:13:35 AM PST by Truth is a Weapon (Truth, it hurts so good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

Obamacaid


28 posted on 12/19/2013 9:22:39 AM PST by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

“The goal being to get this country to a “single payer” system...”

Which is exactly what the Medicaid system will now be used for. The infrastructure is already in place for it.

Obamacaid


29 posted on 12/19/2013 9:25:13 AM PST by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64; All
"If you’re 55 or over, Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses."

"health insurance via Medicaid is hardly “free” for Washington residents 55 or older. It’s a loan, one whose payback requirements aren’t well advertised. And it penalizes people who, despite having a low income, have managed to keep a home or some savings they hope to pass to heirs"

Maybe coming to a State near you?

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/16/fine-print-state-can-seize-your-assets-to-pay-for-care-after-youre-forced-into-medicaid-by-obamacare/

30 posted on 12/19/2013 9:39:59 AM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

Many folks I know, put their home or assets into a trust, or LLC when they get older. I believe they will go back 2 or three years and challenge that change of property. To game the system, you do it as soon as you retire. You also set up a trust of non-taxable income, run by that LLC.

Of course the LLC is run by trusted family members or a trusted attorney. You are just a subsidiary collecting dividends, and living in a rent free home.


31 posted on 12/19/2013 10:01:45 AM PST by esoxmagnum (Turtles don't win fights, they just turtle up. Victory belongs to the aggressor, not the turtle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

“So all of those people who signed up for Medicaid will lose their homes to the Government when they die.????”

That’s always been the case and has nothing to do with obamacare.

The government gets any assets they have to pay back what they used in government medical care.


32 posted on 12/19/2013 10:11:27 AM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Does this have “look back” time? Look back is a provision that if, for instance, a homeowner transferred ownership to his children so if he or she ended up in a nursing home (most of which is paid for by Medicaid) that when he died, if it was beyond the look back period (I think it’s 5 years now), the state couldn’t claim his assets at all.


33 posted on 12/19/2013 10:39:25 AM PST by 3catsanadog (I love my country; I don't like its government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 3catsanadog

I think it’s 5 years now, was three, probably will be extended.


34 posted on 12/19/2013 10:41:09 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Truth is a Weapon

“The moral/ethical concern is whether or not the people signing up for Medicaid have been informed about this claim on their assets they are creating by having their care provided by Medicaid.”

__

People should realize that it’s a “Let the buyer beware” world. They will accept Medicaid without question-—because it’s free.

It’s like the people who took out ARMs and were SHOCKED when their payments went up.

We are on our own——and have to do our own research.

If it’s too good to be true—————!

.


35 posted on 12/19/2013 11:00:13 AM PST by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

What a stroke of brilliance by the marxists. While taking full control over our vey bidies they have design a system, under the radar, to confiscate all private property at the same time. We had to pass it find out what was in it, indeed. But as long as Fluk can get free birthcontrol and I get free mamograms everything is just fine.


36 posted on 12/19/2013 1:15:51 PM PST by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: esoxmagnum
...they will go back 2 or three years and challenge that change of property.

I'm not sure who you refer to as "they". I'll guess you mean the government, not the "folks".

Would it make good sense for a 75-year-old woman to transfer the deed to her house to one or two of her children? Just wondering what you think.

37 posted on 12/19/2013 3:00:18 PM PST by IIntense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

“...Or did you perhaps mean to say...”

I pretty much said what I meant to say. Did you mean to do a better job of searching the web than you did before you question what I said?


38 posted on 12/19/2013 5:11:37 PM PST by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

This whole plan was never about healthcare...

The Supreme Court did state that this is really a tax...Therefore, it is subject to the oversight and authority of the House...Since we do not have effective representation in that body, we are subjugated to the abuses embedded in this law/tax...

There will eventually be a backlash with the people making the appropriate adjustments when enough have had enough...


39 posted on 12/21/2013 4:55:42 PM PST by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: IIntense

Sorry, I should have been more clear. If you go into a nursing home, either a private or public one, or say you want to enroll in medicaid, the IRS will check the status of of when you divested your funds.

Is it a good idea to transfer the deed? Well, it depends on your situation. Do you trust your kids? Do you plan on needing assisted living at some point? Do you not want to pay a death-tax (depending on your state)? I mean, the best thing to do is talk with an estate adviser (an attorney who specializes in that sort of thing in your state).

We have an LLC and an S Corp for different reasons, we own very little assets, even our cars are leased through the LLC, and we pay rent to our LLC for our home, and the LLC even pays the taxes as they own the home.

Find a good lawyer who specializes in this sort of stuff, and they can navigate the red tape for you, and customize a plan that suits your individual needs.


40 posted on 12/27/2013 11:24:17 AM PST by esoxmagnum (Turtles don't win fights, they just turtle up. Victory belongs to the aggressor, not the turtle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson