It’s been that way for years when you go on Medicaid.
No one is forced on——they can just buy health insurance themselves and pay for it.
You want healthcare paid for by the taxpayers you then lose your assets. So what!
.
Well that was fine before you had to have insurance or pay a fine.
Now with Obamacare many will be forced onto Medicare.
before if you did not want healthcare you could opt out. Just not buy it, don’t owe anyone anything, unless you got sick.
Now you either buy healthcare you cannot afford, be placed on Medicaid under protest or pay a fine.
Also everyone who goes onto Medicaid despite their objections should be told out in the open what is going on.
I do not believe many of those people going on it as a result of this UnConstitutional Bullsh*t know the facts.
Sort of like a reverse mortgage between the feds and you, except you are getting free health insurance instead of a monthly check and the feds get your house when you die?
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.
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?