State can seize your assets to pay for care after you're forced into Medicaid by Obamacare

[Pooky 3,348]

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/16/fine-print-state-can-seize-your-assets-to-pay-for-care-after-youre-forced-into-medicaid-by-obamacare/

So, if you're over the age of 55, Medicaid might just be a loan and you or your estate may end up owing it all?

How is that in any way "affordable"?

[lostinblue 1,989]

Embrace the suck..... Income inequality is the game plan going FOWARD now. ......Bring everyone down to the lowest rung.

[Darnell 8,478]

Well sh|t - there's a balancing factor, if'n ever I've heard of a balancing factor.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's a state issue not an ACA issue. And Washington State is working on fixing the rules to ensure that the intent of the ACA - expansion of coverage - is carried out. Every state can do it.

Below is from the very article that Hotair quotes. Of course, they forgot to talk about that part on hotair. Wonder why. No, I actually don't. They don't call that site hotair for no reason.

Over the past month, as lawmakers began hearing from worried and angry constituents, state officials began exploring what it would take to fix this collision of state rules with the ACA.

Late Friday, Gov. Jay Inslee’s office and the state Medicaid office said they plan to draft an emergency rule to limit estate recovery to long-term care and related medical expenses.

They hope to be able to change the rules before coverage begins Jan. 1.

Fixing the problem will cost the state about $3 million a year, said Dr. Bob Crittenden, Inslee’s senior health-policy adviser, but it’s the right thing to do.

“There was no intent on the part of the ACA to do estate recovery on people going into Medicaid (for health insurance),” Crittenden said. “The idea was to expand coverage.”

[aaron2020 11,651]

The Medicaid Reimbursement Act existed well before Obamacare. (It's not Obama's idea or fault.)

Medicaid is WELFARE. It is given to the poor who have less than $2000 of countable assets.

What is not counted is a home.

For example:

Joe and Mary live in California and have a $500,000 home and little in other assets and less than $2000 in cash.

Joe racks up $300,000 in medical bills that is paid for by the Medicaid.

Medicaid pays the $300,000. $300,000 from US taxpayers.

Joe dies.

Mary lives alone in the home for another 10 years before she dies.

Mary leave a home worth $500,000.

The Medicaid Recovery Act requires that US taxpayers be reimbursed the $300,000 in welfare that Joe took before the remainder is distributed to Joe and Mary's heirs.

-----

What is fair?

Joe and Mary's heirs getting $500,000 and US taxpayers get shafted for $300,000; or

US taxpayers getting reimbursed $300,000 first and the remainder goes to Joe and Mary's heirs?

Edited December 18, 2013 by aaron2020

[aaron2020 11,651]

In my example, Joe and Mary makes out pretty good under Medicaid recovery.

They essentially get a loan with zero interest.

Mary gets to live in her home until her death.

The house can appreciate after Joe receives Medicaid and the appreciation goes to the family.

Pretty darn good deal to me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Medicaid Reimbursement Act existed well before Obamacare. (It's not Obama's idea or fault.)

Medicaid is WELFARE. It is given to the poor who have less than $2000 of countable assets.

What is not counted is a home.

For example:

Joe and Mary live in California and have a $500,000 home and little in other assets and less than $2000 in cash.

Joe racks up $300,000 in medical bills that is paid for by the Medicaid.

Medicaid pays the $300,000. $300,000 from US taxpayers.

Joe dies.

Mary lives alone in the home for another 10 years before she dies.

Mary leave a home worth $500,000.

The Medicaid Recovery Act requires that US taxpayers be reimbursed the $300,000 in welfare that Joe took before the remainder is distributed to Joe and Mary's heirs.

-----

What is fair?

Joe and Mary's heirs getting $500,000 and US taxpayers get shafted for $300,000; or

US taxpayers getting reimbursed $300,000 first and the remainder goes to Joe and Mary's heirs?

True enough - and certainly fair enough - as far as the Medicaid Reimbursement Act goes. However, the intent of the Medicaid expansion was to expand health insurance coverage to people. That coverage for those eligible, rather than subsidizing at 100% a private insurance plan, was to be delivered via Medicaid. It's cheaper than to subsidize private health insurance. That coverage should not fall under the Medicaid Reimbursement Act rules. Why? Well, because the private insurance subsidies that are paid to people making above the threshold for Medicaid eligibility are not subject to recovery either even if they exceed the cost of Medicaid coverage. Everyone that has an employer sponsored plan receives subsidies - however indirect that may be. If nothing else, your income tax burden is reduced. Nobody comes after your estate for those subsidies either once you kick the bucket.