Posted on 02/28/2005 4:26:16 PM PST by Graybeard58
HELENA -- The 53 members of the King Colony Hutterite community in central Montana live a communal, mostly self-sufficient life. Members of the religious group don't believe in individual property ownership and shy away from most government aid, including health care.
But now the colony is at the center of a dispute coming before the state Supreme Court this week over whether members are eligible for Medicaid benefits.
Seven women members of the colony, formally known as King Colony Ranch Inc., sued the state, arguing they were denied benefits because of their religious beliefs.
The state of Montana contends members don't qualify financially for Medicaid because they all have access to the colony's vast net worth, estimated at about $2.1 million.
Russ Cater, chief legal counsel for the state Department of Public Health and Human Services, said the case could have far-reaching effects. If the state loses, he said, it could face a huge increase in the Medicaid benefits it has to provide to similar groups of people.
"Any communal living situation, I guess any family trust, family farm trust, it would be I think easy for a multimillion-dollar farm organization to put their income into some kind of a trust and indicate that they're going to send their members to welfare to apply for health benefits," Cater said.
In 1992, seven women from the Hutterite colony applied for and were granted benefits for themselves and their families through Medicaid, the government program that helps pay for medical care for the poor.
Later, however, the state Department of Public Health and Human Services told them it didn't believe they qualified for the benefits and planned to cut them off at the end of 2001.
The department argued that King Colony established a "trust relationship" through its founding documents. The department contends that means those seven women and their families have access to the colony's assets.
But attorneys for Rita, Anna, Bertha, Sarah, Marie and Judith Hofer and Mary Wollman, dispute that, arguing that the women have no vote in the colony and, therefore, no way to access those resources.
A state district judge ruled in favor of the women last March, but the state appealed. The hearing before the Supreme Court is scheduled for Wednesday.
Attorneys for the women declined to comment before the hearing, but argued during an earlier hearing that the state's interpretation that the women have access to the colony's assets is wrong.
"They don't own anything," Bozeman attorney Kent Kasting said of the women. "They can't -- they come into the world with nothing."
A woman who answered the phone at the colony declined to discuss the case, calling it a private matter. She declined to identify herself.
Court documents provide some picture of life on the ranch and outline the opposing sides in the dispute.
The Hutterites have roots in the 16th-century Anabaptist religious movement in Europe, the same movement that gave rise to the Mennonites and Amish. They live in communal agricultural colonies where the men and women have traditional roles and wear traditional clothing.
Technology is embraced on most colonies, as long as it helps advance the common good. Men use tractors and combines.
The women testified that they aren't always given money for groceries they'd like, to supplement the staple meat and vegetables they produce on the ranch. Most of their net worth is in farmland, crops and livestock.
According to court statements by John Stahl, an elder in the community, the men in the colony, who make all financial decisions, try to fully take care of the members but increasing health care costs prevent them from paying for medical care.
But Cater disagrees. He said the colony could sell some of its resources to cover medical expenses, just like other families who would otherwise qualify for Medicaid must often do.
"I think it was simply a business judgment that health care costs are rising considerably and if they can get someone else to pay for their health care costs in the end it would benefit their colony, their business, their members," Cater said.
In court documents, he noted that while the women argued they had no vote in the colony, each belonged to a family that "includes a male head-of-household who is eligible to vote on colony matters."
Cater said if the high court sides with the women, other Hutterite colonies may seek benefits too, he said.
"Right now not all colonies are sending their members to apply for Medicaid," Cater said. "It's only a few such as the King Colony, but we have received word from the other colonies that if the state loses this case they may have to reevaluate their past practices and perhaps send their members to ask for Medicaid assistance."
The case is: Hofer vs. Department of Public Health and Human Service.
I still want a free pony.
This will just hasten the bankruptcy of Medicare.
The colony could purchase insurance, like the rest of us.
Surprising to find this among the Hutterites.
This is a program that seriously needs reform. There are newborns born premature (because of Moms on drugs) who are severly disabled, those cases alone cost medicaid $100K to $500K first few months of their lives.
And "they" can leave that way. Welcome to the consequences of free choice.
40 grand makes a person ineligible for medicaid I do believe.
They seem to barter and the worth of their work isn't income. I don't know about tax issues but I do know that medicaid won't let you keep a nest egg and get benefits. You have to spend down your money.
Interesting, it was all women who sued and hide behind their husbands. And the story of not having money for groceries,,is that something they think most people who work don't face at times. This is a ploy to "not have anything to do with the government" and get aid at the same time.
The Hutterites are a bit repressive. And they, like certain groups like getting things they did not pay for.
Interesting thought.
If you willingly decide not to work for wages or money, if you scorn that and live communally, should you get the benefits that "poor" get. Now we can argue all day long if the poor act like they can't get a job or not. But these people admit it, are proud of it, can work and do work, just not for money. Should they get the benefit of the deserving poor when they are penniless by choice.
Fascinating! Considering that the group's assets are in farmland/real estate so they can be largely self-sustaining...these women probably could argue that if Mexican women can enfranchise themselves here by childbirth, why could not American citizens obtain the same level of medical services as the illegals who come here for childbirth anchoring? (BTW I'm not condoning this)
And recalling Waco! -- will some activist Judge lay the groundwork for IRS or other seizure of private property, for eminent domain or medical bill lien/levy/reimbursements? (I'm DEFINITELY not condoning this.)
Much to ponder here.
Well, now maybe if they get bill, they can do what the rest of us do about bills. Somebody on the commune can hitail it into town and get a job to pay it off, or they can sell some of their veggies, or take in ironing.
Amazing, people do make money to pay bills.
medical bills go to collection every day and liens are placed on property when bills aren't paid. do you object to bills being collected?
Govt. Bills being paid.....
Legitimate Govt. debts should be paid. By everyone, including illegals. Due process is mandatory.
I do not want to encourage any "abolish the IRS, it's illegal" posts here. Just to say yes, the government should collect.
But without tanks under Kammandantur Janet Reno-Clinton
I never heard of the government collecting a bill with tanks. And Reno wasn't collecting bills at Waco.
Didn't say that was the case. But it was a religious group, on a private communal site. Those are the parallels I was drawing.
I regard a context of aggressive conversion of land to ecological reserves, state parks, Clinton's conversion of federal parks to UN sites and recent escalation in eminent domain activism by government against private propertyholders relevant here as well. You may not. That's OK.
It sounds like 6 out of 7 of these women are from the same family. That's hardly a Hutterite conspiracy, however, I am sure all of them will hop on the bandwagon it they succeed.
A question I have: If neither they nor their husbands ever paid in, why should they get anything now?
Old enough, poor enough, disabled enough - you get it.
Well, Of course I remember what you are talking about.
But this is not that in my opinion.
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.