Posted on 07/07/2009 7:48:07 AM PDT by rawhide
After caring for Vietnam veteran Roger Lennon for more than a dozen years, two months after his death Sarah Miller received a bill from the state of Iowa for almost $300,000 for medical care he received at a state-run veteran's home, according to a report in the Quad-City Times.
"I called them and said, 'Is this a joke?'" Miller told the Quad-City Times. "Who has that kind of money? And I was with Roger every time he was signed into the Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown. They never said anything about billing him after he passed."
Lennon was wounded in Vietnam and received a Purple Heart. He was also injured in a 1990 welding accident that kept him confined to a wheelchair most of the time, the newspaper reported. He received care at the veterans' home for several years...
...According to the Iowa Department of Human Services, however, the state has the right to pursue assets after Lennon's death because he was a Medicaid recipient, the newspaper reported. Lennon and Miller owned two rental properties in Bettendorf, Iowa, that she maintained during the years of his illness.
The state is asking Miller for half of the value of the two properties, about $40,000.
"Everybody who gets Medicaid is told this is a government program for which we will be expecting repayment," DHS spokesman Roger Munns told the newspaper. "It's not fair for taxpayers — you and me — to pay if there are assets.
"It's not draconian. It's not meant to be cruel," he said.
The letter from DHS, which says Lennon owes $277,186.96, after expressing condolences, reads: "This debt must be, and can only be, paid from anything that the individual owned or had an interest in at the time of death." {snip}
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Sad but true.
I have a family member who got one of those letters after his wife passed away-arrived on the day of the funeral!
It did add that altho, they “traditionally” don’t hound the widower for payment, any of the descendants (kids, grandkids)will be responsible for the bill.
For most families in this country the “death tax” that really maters is the one paid to the providers of medical care in the last years of life.
This is less intrusive than some states -— it’s just limited to the estate of the decedant.
In some states (I believe New Jersey), even if a child had nothing to do with the parent, was abandoned, and inherited nothing, the child was responsible for care given the parent.
There was a lawsuit by some lady whose father molested and raped her, she fled back in the 1960s -— he died 2000ish, and the State of New Jersey sent her a bill for his care.
Did Chicago politican Sen. Carol Moseley Braun ever fork over her mom’s estate to Medicaid?
This is true if the estate left is worth $10,000 or more.
My MIL received medicaid for her stay in a dementia care facility after her cash assets were depleted.
The state was reimbursed after her real estate was sold - and it was right to do so. Why should taxpayers pay when the patient has the assets to do so?
Agree completely.
Meanwhile people who never work never pay a dime back
We should be billing home countries of illegals for the care, feeding and welfare received by them.
Kids and grandkids?
Unless they signed something, I fail to see how that could be true.
***Meanwhile people who never work never pay a dime back***
My worthless brother-in-law (If you know him he probably owes you money)resembles that!
***If he was on Medicaid, I’m afraid she’s gonna have to pay up.***
All elderly people should get everything they have put in a ‘Revocable Trust” years before a nursing home is needed.
Just some area of thought - not necessarily directly related to the case above:
Who exactly should be responsible for the later health cost of senior? In particular, who should be responsible for nursing home-type care? It is quite expensive, though generally less than a hospital.
The reason I ask - I know many with a family member (or multiple family members) in such care. All are on Medicare, and are paying nothing themselves for this care.
Is the government responsible?
What about those, who for whatever reason, are in need of such care at an early age say before Medicare kicks in?
Again, who should pay the bill?
Taxpayers?
Is it the government’s business to take care of us when we are old and unable to care for ourselves?
Where do you draw the line?
They can go back a certain number of years and lay claim to property and other assets that have been sold/transferred to others to recoup some of the costs.
But again - WHO should pay?
Then what about those who are basically abandoned by worthless family to a nursing home - regardless of if they really need such care or not -
How many people who need such care actually have the resources to pay for it? I would venture that the vast majority do not. Some have insurance policies/pre-paid care packages that pay some of the cost.
So again - who should pay?
You have one of those, too? You have my sympathy. The rule in our house is “just say ‘NO’” when he calls.
“Meanwhile people who never work never pay a dime back.”
Life isn’t fair, and remember, it is the Dems that always promise to make it fair.
,i>In some states (I believe New Jersey), even if a child had nothing to do with the parent, was abandoned, and inherited nothing, the child was responsible for care given the parent.</i>
Do you have any more on this? Doing some research on this for a family member.
Not really; I do believe they passed a law to prevent this.
There are unethical nursing homes that attempt to press “responsible persons” (e.g., the adult child who signed the paperwork) into paying. With the exception of private homes where you clearly intended to pay extra, they can’t do this.
Medicare does look to the estate.
Paying for her care would bankrupt us and prohibit us from saving for our own retirement and long term care, thus putting our children in the same situation she's placed us in. Both my husband and I work. We're both college-educated professionals. Our only debt is our house, which is less than 15% of our take home. We drive 14 and 17 year old cars, so we're not living beyond our means. Her physical condition is beyond the ability of one person to take care of, so it's not like one of us could quit our job to care for her in our home. And of course, with losing one income, we'd still face the issue of not being able to pay for help with her, and save for our retirement or replace the cars, which is going to be a concern before long.
We've lived within our means. We've planned for our future. We've worked for what we own. She didn't. She was of the generation who thought Social Security and Medicare would be more than enough, and would always be there. Are you suggesting that we (and our children who will then have to help support us) should be penalized for her lack of planning? For the sake of taking one person “off the dole” are you willing to risk putting two people who wouldn't have needed to be on the dole in jeopardy?
I don't have any good answers. I abhor the number of people sucking off the government. I'm more than aware that families “pre-inherit” Grandma's belongings to impoverish her, so the government will pay for her care, and the family still “gets something.” Not everyone does that.
Something needs to be done, but a blanket “just make the families pay for them” isn't the answer. I wish I knew what it was.
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.