Posted on 12/13/2010 6:29:45 AM PST by La Lydia
AFTER immigrating to New York City from China...Z. Y. Tung and his wife worked hard — he as a bank manager, she as a...secretary — lived frugally and saved every penny they could for the next generation. Until five years ago, when his wife, Wen Mei Hu, racked by bone-marrow cancer, had to be put in a nursing home, where the bills ran past $100,000 a year, threatening to quickly drain the couple’s life savings of $500,000. The nursing home told him: If he signed a document essentially refusing to support his wife of several decades, Medicaid, the federal insurance program for the indigent, would pick up the bill...The practice, known as “spousal refusal,” is becoming more common...
Without the option of spousal refusal, lawyers say, American health care is like a ghoulish lottery. Those who need doctors’ care for illnesses like cancer or heart disease are covered by Medicare, the insurance program for the elderly, while those who need more custodial care for Alzheimer’s or stroke must pay for it themselves or dispose of their assets to qualify for Medicaid.
The federal government allows a healthy spouse to keep a house, a car, up to about $2,700 a month in income and up to about $110,000 in other resources. Anything above that must be spent on nursing care before Medicaid kicks in...
The way it works: the healthy spouse refuses to share the marital assets, and the sick spouse assigns his or her “right of support” to the state. The state will then pick up the cost of nursing home care, or in New York, home health care, as well. But there is a catch: the state, through the local governments that help administer Medicaid, can sue the healthy spouse to recover the cost of the care....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Funny how New York State wonders why it is going broke.
I recently had a conversation with a libinlaw that went something like this:
Thomas Sowell, in “Intellectuals and Society”, pointed out that liberals really don’t care how much fraud and waste are in these entitlement systems, as long as everyone who needs help gets it.
LiL: That’s not true! Liberals DO care about waste and fraud in those systems! But it’s more important that everyone get the help they need.
Isn’t that what I just said?
LiL: It sounded meaner when you said it.
A woman has bone cancer. She moves to a nursing home. Care costs $100,000 a year.
Okay. Sad case. Got it.
Exactly how long will she suffer from bone cancer? Years and years and years? I don't think so.
I believe that people should have private insurance and they should have private savings. When illness strikes, you use the coverage you have purchased, and you spend your own money. But no one has to take advantage of every medical trick in the book. At some point (for a variety of reasons) one has to be willing to say "Stop the treatments. I'll just die."
I see nothing wrong with that at all. It's not immoral. It's a recognition that this life is a temporary thing any way.
On the other hand, putting a gun to my head and telling me that I need to shell out money to pay for someone else's medical care, is deeply immoral.
>The federal government allows a healthy spouse to keep a house, a car, up to about $2,700 a month in income and up to about $110,000 in other resources.<
An elderly couple who has an hypothetical $2,700 a month in income would have to have a fair amount of capital to generate the income, would they not? Assuming no fat government pension, that is.
So, if the all benevolent government forces the couple to drain their “other resources” down to $110,000, how in all that’s logical are the couple not robbed of their source of income???
My wife works in the Employee Benefit industry and I can attest that this case is more the NORM than an exception.
She constantly runs into situations where some NY government agency, in an effort to make sure their agency stays relevant, will guide someone away from private insurance and onto the public teat.
One which comes to mind was a man who wanted to pay for his girlfriend’s pregnancy costs and support the child and the local communist state agency told him to not bother that they would cover the cost. WTHeck is going on. The state is bankrupt and yet they still want to throw our money away.
I thought the state was supposed to go after the man for all costs real or imagined.
I believe that people should have private insurance and they should have private savings. When illness strikes, you use the coverage you have purchased, and you spend your own money. But no one has to take advantage of every medical trick in the book. At some point (for a variety of reasons) one has to be willing to say “Stop the treatments. I’ll just die.”
I presented this idea to a lib once and he actually admitted he hadn’t thought about that.
Now the question, debate, revolution is who decides? you, the market place, insurance, family, govt, lobbyists, etc.......................
YMMV but in my experience this is complete baloney. I have known quite a number of destitute people who did not receive proper medical care, or the same care that they'd have gotten if they'd had the funds to pay for it. Medicare/Medicaid do not provide a hundred thousand dollars for victims of cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, or stroke. There are innumerable reasons to deny them medical attention. ("This isn't covered...we don't accept that without a substantial copay...here's a referral for a specialist in Timbuktu, bon voyage...." etc.)
Again, someone else may see different results. I never have. It's a bigger lie than legal aid. The poor still die of poverty.
because Medicaid pays less for nursing home care than private clients do.
Libs seem remarkably ignorant to the basic economic fact that resources, goods and services are finite (ie, “scarce”).
But even after educating my benchmark lib to this fact,
she still stated she’d rather have someone “in charge” making those decisions than those dastardly insurance companies.
If people are dependent on the goventment, then the political elite will always be the most important people in society. They like that.
Why would anyone buy health insurance for family members when you can just say that you refuse to support them and the taxpayers then become responsible for paying all the bills?
When the government creates programs to give things away for free to “the poor”, it is amazing how many people qualify. Under the welfare programs, the couple don’t marry and the father is not responsible for supporting his wife and his children.
Democrats always create programs that give things away for free to the irresponsible. These programs are bankrupting and destroying our country.
We can't leave the question, because it does not go away. We as conservatives can say what we don't like but it does not solve the problem. Shouldn't the couple pay for their own costs, he is still left with the house as an asset to use for his care as well as other income.
The current plan may not be perfect but may be the best.
My Mom is 98 years old, we spend a lot of time and resources keeping her living independent. Yet if the 80 acre farm needs to be used to care for her, that is what it is there for. In laws told us to several years back to have her gift the farm so the govt would pay for her care. My Mom bought her own walker, wasn't going to have the govt buy her one.
Many elderly don't have family, so the govt is a substitute. Even if you have kids, no guarantee they will care for you.
I would propose that the current plan presented in the article is a conservative position. They were not forced into the current situation but went after the "free cheese".
They “feel” they have power thru their vote in the govt but the reality is I have much more checks and balances in a free market place.
I don’t think they feel they have power when the government has the control. I really think they’d rather not have the responsibility of making those decisions for themselves. After all, who could they whine about if they made a bad decision?
There is also the elitist factor. This same lib actually made the statement that 60% of the population shouldn’t be allowed to make their own decisions because they were incapable of doing so.
The problem is worsened percentage wise now because of the govt programs. Historically there is always a percentage that can't take care of themselves. The debate is who should take care of them. In the past it was family, individuals, community , church, local govt. Now it is centralized federal govt. I much prefer the model from the past........................
I might also say, people have to suffer the consequences of bad decisions to learn anything, not going to happen with a nanny govt. At least not until the govt runs out of money and some bad decisions have very LONG TAILS.
I’m thinking it’s about control. My Dad recentley needed Physical Therpay for about 2 weeks. His insurance company wouldn’t pay for all of it unless he went to one of the places they chose. Dad would have to pay 30% of the cost. However if he didn’t have private insurance, Medicare would pay 100% and he could choose the place. Seems to me if you have Medicare & Insurance, they would work together to pay for it. I still think I would rather have an insurance co decide than the Government. What does the Government have to lose? At least with a private Company you can sue or change coverage/companies.
Most libs think of the Government as daddy, and daddy will always love them and take care of them. Strangely, those same people seem to have never found a living human being who can live up to that standard.
Oh, I think you’d be surprised at how people would “step up” when consequences were real and imminent.
The problem has indeed been exacerbated, on purpose, by government programs to “help” people. It has allowed laziness to creep in.
Libs don’t want the past model of family, individuals, communities and churches taking care of those who are truly in need,
because that requires them to actually DO something rather than advocating that something be done.
The whole point behind liberal advocacy is to feel good about oneself without actually having to do anything.
The heavenly Father requires too much of them, or so they think.
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.