Posted on 02/01/2006 11:43:22 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Giving to churches by seniors threatened?
Little-noticed part of bill would penalize many for making donations
--------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 1, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Churches and other recipients of charitable giving that rely on senior citizens could face severe hardship if a Medicaid rule-change tucked into a 750-page budget bill passes the House this week, advocacy groups warn.
Under current rules, a senior can give a gift to a church without affecting qualification for Medicaid assisted-living coverage, points out the conservative RightMarch.com. But the proposed legislation would take into account every donation for the five years preceding admission to a facility.
Opponents say the change will cause hardship for families of faithful givers who would face monthly nursing-home payments of $4,000 to $7,000.
Supporters argue the legislation is intended to stop wealthy seniors from transferring assets so they can qualify for the coverage by Medicaid, which was started in 1965 to assist poor families. It's the only government program that provides assistance for long-term care.
But Charles Sabatino, who runs the American Bar Association's Commission on Law and Aging, contends it's the poor and middle class who will get hurt.
"My concern here is that all the usual, normal caring family transactions that people engage in, without thinking of Medicaid, will be scooped up by this penalty," he said in an interview with National Public Radio. "… Anytime you give money away for whatever reason, you would get penalized for it."
The gifts taken into account, points out RightMarch.com, include college tuition for grandchildren; emergency help for family; Christmas, birthday, wedding and graduation presents; charitable and church donations.
Backers of the bill says they want to eliminate "Medicaid for Millionaires."
Stephen Moses of the Center for Long-Term Care Reform in Seattle told NPR, it's been possible for seniors to give away $50 million three years before applying for Medicaid and be accepted.
Because that loophole exists, he says, Medicaid wastes billions of dollars.
U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, said in a November letter to his House colleagues that the new rules would "eliminate fraud and abuse" by middle and upper-income seniors who move assets "to appear impoverished."
Congressional investigators, however, found that while seniors do give away a lot of their money, it's in small amounts – not the kind of transactions needed to hide family fortunes.
Opponents also say the bill wouldn't prevent lawyers from finding ways to "protect assets," and the unintended consequence of curbing regular giving by seniors will devastate churches.
The Senate version, the "Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005," passed Dec. 21, and the House is expected to take up its version today or tomorrow.
The relevant passage in the Senate version is on pages 154-155.
So much for the freedom to practice one's religion.
One word answer - FAIRTAX - same word again - FAIRTAX
I think there is a story in the Bible about you should take care of your parents before giving to the church. Anyone back me up?
Gi ahead and practice it, but not on my dime.
This is about seniors who use medicaid tax dollars after putting their own money into trusts and donating to the church in order to spend down to medicaid-eligiblity.
Yes, it's in 2nd Opinions, Chapter 5. Just before the Chapter supporting Gay Marriage.
Sounds as if the only thing that's being restricted is how seniors can dispose of their wealth in order to be eligible to have Uncle Sugar (via our tax dollars) pay for their nursing home.
15:1 Then Pharisees and experts in the law came from Jerusalem to Jesus and said, 15:2 “Why do your disciples disobey the tradition of the elders? For they don’t wash their5 hands when they eat.” 15:3 He answered them, “And why do you disobey the commandment of God because of your tradition? 15:4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death.’ 15:5 But you say, ‘If someone tells his father or mother, “Whatever help you would have received from me is given to God,”11 15:6 he does not need to honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God on account of your tradition. 15:7 Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said,15:8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me,-- Mat. 15:1-9 [NET]
15:9 and they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’"
This article is yet another example of the sensationalism of WND. Never mind that this measure is to prevent charitable giving from being used as a means to Medicaid fraud. Nope, it's automatically yet another case of persecution of Christians.
No, this is about politicians wanting to control our personal finances. And it is rooted in a socialist mindset.
Are you also in favor of including other expenses that deplete people's financial position prior to retirement, such as vacations and elective surgeries? Do you really want the government telling you how to spend your money?
If you answer yes to these questions then consider the fact that you might be a closet socialist.
See my post, number 11 in this thread. The problem is social security, not my giving to charity.
There is no "AND" in that verse. Parents come first above the "church" institutions
"There is no such command in the Bible. You should honor God with your giving AND take care of your parents. "
It sounds to me like we are to take care of our parents first. If there are assets available it should go for the parents care first before giving to the church or other institutions. If there is still some left after they are gone, THEN give it to the church. I don't have a problem with this change in law, but like the article says, people will find a way around it which reveals their true heart.
If it was up to me there would be no tax deductions for giving to non profits. Want to see how serious churches and non profits are interested in their "cause"........cut off their money. Large contributions to churches usually causes discussion of softer pews and larger buildings rather than expanding the kingdom.
I'm thinking of using up as much as possible and then leaving it to the "home for unwed pussycats" as suggested by Mark Twain.
If they are moving assets to avoid paying their medical bills then something should be done. They should have bought long term care insurance if they had that kind of money, and should not expect the American tax payer to pay for care they should be responsible for IF THEY HAVE THE MONEY?
I have my long term care insurance and if they have that kind of money they should have it also.
I
So merely limiting Christian contribution would still allow them to give to Socialist and Commie things and that's just dandy?
From the article:
But the proposed legislation would take into account every donation for the five years preceding admission to a facility.
How solid is the math that spends $80,000/yr on nursing home care for people who never earned that sume in their lives? And what society can afford than when average earnings are half that amount?
This is a classic example of legislation that is written in such a general way that the "rule of unintended consequences" takes over. In this case the giving that you must report is not restricted to your church or charity, but could be construed to include gifts you give to your children or even your parents. The law may be needed to close a loophole for the rich, but the unintended consequences would effect us all.
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.