Posted on 12/19/2013 7:07:25 AM PST by stevie_d_64
Once upon a time I was an eligibility worker for MediCal, California’s Medicaid. If someone was not living in their home it was considered an asset that could be sold to pay for their own care. Then the amount received had to be documented down to $2500 before they became eligible.
That’s fair. What I didn’t consider fair was that a 20 yr old with 3 kids could walk in and boom be eligible because of the kids.
Someone worked and saved all their lives and had to get rid of everything to get help while a gal who laid on her back and pumped out kids got it all for nothing.
There should be a way to fix it all but our politicians don’t want to.
I quit after a particularly agregious case. Just couldn’t take it anymore.
I see an increase in arson cases coming. What are they going to do, exhume bodies and put them on trial?
They aren't going to lose any elections unless there are throngs of angry people rushing to the polling booths.
You saw Harry Reid yesterday. Fully confident about the next elections. Because he knows the outcome. They stole the last one for him, likely.
You know who paid the subsidies - you and I did.
We are heading there now.
Are you sure about your figures? £140,000 in assets (vulgo: wealth) is really not very much.
Or did you perhaps mean to say annual income?
On the other hand, £140,000 in assets is consistent with your statement about that corresponding to "[...] what upper middle class used to be a nice house and a nest egg."
Based on data from the HMRC for 20042005, about 10% of all households in the U.K. had assets amounting to at least £176,221.
Regards,
You are, of course, correct about Medicaid and its historical claim on assets. The difference is that there is a new push to get people into Medicaid based solely on income. The moral/ethical concern is whether or not the people signing up for Medicaid have been informed about this claim on their assets they are creating by having their care provided by Medicaid.
Can you imagine the outrage if an insurance company had a fine print provision that granted a lien on the policyholder’s assets. The federal government just writes such a claim in the statute with no disclosure required.
Suppose there is an elderly couple who are caring for a disabled child in their home. When the last spouse of the couple dies the federal government steps in and claims the home and kicks the child to the curb. Again, as long as people go into this arrangement with eyes wide open and fully informed they get what they bargained for. But how many will be informed and made to understand?
Obamacaid
“The goal being to get this country to a single payer system...”
Which is exactly what the Medicaid system will now be used for. The infrastructure is already in place for it.
Obamacaid
"health insurance via Medicaid is hardly free for Washington residents 55 or older. Its a loan, one whose payback requirements arent well advertised. And it penalizes people who, despite having a low income, have managed to keep a home or some savings they hope to pass to heirs"
Maybe coming to a State near you?
Many folks I know, put their home or assets into a trust, or LLC when they get older. I believe they will go back 2 or three years and challenge that change of property. To game the system, you do it as soon as you retire. You also set up a trust of non-taxable income, run by that LLC.
Of course the LLC is run by trusted family members or a trusted attorney. You are just a subsidiary collecting dividends, and living in a rent free home.
“So all of those people who signed up for Medicaid will lose their homes to the Government when they die.????”
That’s always been the case and has nothing to do with obamacare.
The government gets any assets they have to pay back what they used in government medical care.
Does this have “look back” time? Look back is a provision that if, for instance, a homeowner transferred ownership to his children so if he or she ended up in a nursing home (most of which is paid for by Medicaid) that when he died, if it was beyond the look back period (I think it’s 5 years now), the state couldn’t claim his assets at all.
I think it’s 5 years now, was three, probably will be extended.
“The moral/ethical concern is whether or not the people signing up for Medicaid have been informed about this claim on their assets they are creating by having their care provided by Medicaid.”
__
People should realize that it’s a “Let the buyer beware” world. They will accept Medicaid without question-—because it’s free.
It’s like the people who took out ARMs and were SHOCKED when their payments went up.
We are on our own——and have to do our own research.
If it’s too good to be true—————!
.
What a stroke of brilliance by the marxists. While taking full control over our vey bidies they have design a system, under the radar, to confiscate all private property at the same time. We had to pass it find out what was in it, indeed. But as long as Fluk can get free birthcontrol and I get free mamograms everything is just fine.
I'm not sure who you refer to as "they". I'll guess you mean the government, not the "folks".
Would it make good sense for a 75-year-old woman to transfer the deed to her house to one or two of her children? Just wondering what you think.
“...Or did you perhaps mean to say...”
I pretty much said what I meant to say. Did you mean to do a better job of searching the web than you did before you question what I said?
This whole plan was never about healthcare...
The Supreme Court did state that this is really a tax...Therefore, it is subject to the oversight and authority of the House...Since we do not have effective representation in that body, we are subjugated to the abuses embedded in this law/tax...
There will eventually be a backlash with the people making the appropriate adjustments when enough have had enough...
Sorry, I should have been more clear. If you go into a nursing home, either a private or public one, or say you want to enroll in medicaid, the IRS will check the status of of when you divested your funds.
Is it a good idea to transfer the deed? Well, it depends on your situation. Do you trust your kids? Do you plan on needing assisted living at some point? Do you not want to pay a death-tax (depending on your state)? I mean, the best thing to do is talk with an estate adviser (an attorney who specializes in that sort of thing in your state).
We have an LLC and an S Corp for different reasons, we own very little assets, even our cars are leased through the LLC, and we pay rent to our LLC for our home, and the LLC even pays the taxes as they own the home.
Find a good lawyer who specializes in this sort of stuff, and they can navigate the red tape for you, and customize a plan that suits your individual needs.
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.