I may be in the minority here but I see nothing wrong with the state trying to recover some of the care costs of patients. It's taking nothing from the patients, only their heirs and at that, only money that's owed to the state.
It's a heartbreak, nothing but a heartbreak.
When we were contemplating long term care for a family member, the nursing homes made it abundantly clear that Medicaid did not mean "free" care. It meant Medicaid would go after every dollar in assets from the patient both while alive and after death.
I have no sympathy for the kids in any case like this.None.
Poor estate planning. If the family had done its homework, and consulted with an expert, this could have been avoided, all legally.
If so, shouldn't it come out of the big tobacco settlement to pay for health care costs for smokers? /SARC
When I get to the point where someone feels the need to warehouse me, I'll sell my house. For a buck or two, maybe even five.
Here's the problem I have with this.
They're trying to recoup money for nursing home care...no problem. But then why not keep a running tab on all kinds of care given through the "system" and try to recoup that money too.
Why single out nursing home care? If the patient was on long term dialysis or chemotherapy under the program, why not try to recoup that too.
Why just try to recoup the money of those that were in nursing homes?
>>>"That was my father's dying wish - to hold onto the house, live in it, take care of it," said Nashville resident Judy Clifford, 66, one of three Henkel children. "That's what he told me, and he gave the house to me." >>>
Then your father should have purchased long term care insurance. It should not be for the tax payers of Tennessee to pay for your fathers care with a perfectly good way to pay sitting there so he can have a dying wish of holding to a house. It was my mothers dying wish not to die, but that didn't happen either.
Give your real estate to your kids. If you do it more tham 60 months prior to being deemed eligible for Medicaide, then it will not be looked at when you die.
I WANT MY FREE STUFF!
If he gave the house to one or more of the children, and did so legally and within the prescribed time period, then the state can't touch it. If, however, it was simply a statement, or if it was done the week before, then the state can and will come after it.
These eventualities can be foreseen and planned for. The house can be put in a trust for the kids and the parents given a lifetime right to live in it. It's perfectly legal provided this is done far enough in advance (typically 3 years) so it is not an apparent attempt to circumvent paying medical and final care bills. Legally, then, the house doesn't belong to the parents any longer and the state can't come after it.
The operative phrase...
This feels like a slippery slope. In a welfare society the individual can be viewed as owing everything to the state. Therefore once you pass on everything you own is sold to compensate the state for "services provided".
Services provided can be viewed as simple government functions once funded by taxes but now very costly due to the disparity between the public sector and private sector pay. To fund public sector wages the government starts confiscating private property to pay for services.
Something I have to wonder about. When the patient is given or ask to sign forms to authorize treatment, are they made aware that receiving the treatment will cost their children the home they're living in? If I'm ever in that position, I might want to know that.
That free stuff sure costs a lot.
The old man should have transferred the title to the family and the govt can go pound salt for allowing health care to become unaffordable.
If a private company or a corporation were doing these things, the state would shut them down instantly.
So much wrong here; but it really all boils down to a single word in one sentence:
"If we are going to provide Medicaid coverage, we must actively engage in estate recovery efforts."
If.
If it were truly a matter of IF, people would be discussing the alternative.
Instead we have no one questioning the merit of socialized medicine, and therefore they actively engage in estate recovery efforts that would be called criminal atrocitites if committed by anyone except the holy gubmint.