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.
Takacs thinks there should be an honest debate about what people should pay and what the government should pay.
Earth to Socialists: The government gets all its money from the the people!
You're right about the "if" matter needing to be addressed. But step one is allowing people to make their own decisions about when to die (inlcuding via advance directives). With assisted suicide outlawed, the remaining options are expensive long-term care and dying slowly and miserably, often in agonizing pain. Since few people are willing to go that way, or watch their relatives go that way, and few can actually pay for nursing home care out of pocket, they all vote for a socialist "solution".
Even if someone is conscious and able to make decisions, and chooses the slow miserable death route as preferable to wiping out the estate they wanted to pass on to their children, any relatives who are living with them or are aware of the situation are subject to criminal prosecution for not seeking medical care for the person who wants to die.