Obamacare: The Final Payment–Raiding the Assets of Low-Income and Poor Americans
Medicaid is a financial trap. Be aware of what you're getting into. I don't have the answers, just passing on the info.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
(3 = Center for American Progress, Demos, and Dr. Emmanuel)
My wife claims many attorneys make a good practice helping people work the system so that their parents with net worths in the $200k range can somehow divest their money, claim poverty, and get on the program. My wife won't do it a) for moral reasons and b) because the gov't is increasingly going after Welfare fraud and questionable divestment.
They can't even revolt against these DC terrorists.
I just want to clarify, b/c I may me misunderstanding, that you think it's mistreating the elderly if we make it hard for them to get on Welfare.
In my case, my mother-in-law, has a net worth in the $180k range. She gave our kids a few thousands dollars over the past few years. If she runs out of money and wants to apply for Medical Assistance, depending on when that happens, we may have to return those gifts to our kids for her application to be accepted. If you think this is abusive to the elderly, you must think Medical Assistance is a right, even for people who are poor after giving away their wealth. I'm probably missing something.
We are working with an attorney, and my wife is attorney working in this area. When you say money can be **saved** you mean she can get on Welfare even though she has money. She doesn't want to use Welfare unless she really needs it.
We're going to set up a trust to pay the property taxes on her house, and get on MA. The trust will have to pay back every dollar of MA given to her, to the extent she has the money. She's only doing that to fund the upkeep on the house while we sell it or for the unlikely case she recovers enough to live there. She does not want to find a trick not to pay back the MA monies. She does not want to be on Welfare unless she lives long enough to use up all her money.
Her money will not be **given** to a nursing home or hospital. She will only pay them for services they actually provided. She will not be **forced** to spend down her money. She's spending it on a place that's located 3 miles from my wife and me.
She is on hospice and has a right to large doses of morphine, which would probably end her life, but instead she wants to spend her money and see if things improve enough to make it worthwhile. So far she's doing it all with money she and her husband saved from working on a Rubbermaid assembly line and a used car lot. It amazes me how much they save even though most years they were barely above the poverty line.
Utilizing the law is not a "trick" any more than paying real estate taxes and deducting that is a trick. I didn't say one word about welfare - that's your phrase, not mine.
Sorry I tried to help. Best wishes to her and you.
So many people misuse those words. "I was forced to sign up for a car lease, and now I'm giving money to car dealer." "PPACA increased taxes but saves huge amounts of money." It's almost like they're losing their meaning in everyday use.
In her case, the gov't isn't seizing anything. She's spending her money on something she says she wants. I'm amazed at how many people think if it's something medical, someone else should pay for it. PPACA, which I think does more good than harm, will make this problem worse.
My mother was just moved because I discovered that they were feeding the patients what would amount to $5 of food a day. That's not right.
As for distributing funds to kids there are several methods and they can vary by state laws, thats why I said to check with a lawyer. I'm glad you have one.
We have deposit boxes in a couple banks for each of our kids. Each month or two, we buy as much Gold as the law will allow us to give them tax free and lock it away for them. When I die each kid will get the key to their boxes. The rest of my estate will be taxed by the laws then, but this much I can do NOW and since the boxes are in their names, not ours, our passing will not effect this much of my wealth.
There are a bunch of different strategies that are legal and safe. The old trust fund is safe, but these days who knows what the market will do. Our kids have that in place to, but like our life insurance polices they are linked to successful growth of the stock market for a good yield.
Best to you in this.
Thank you for your suggestions and support.
Wow. The way you word is very different from how I think of gov't assistance. I believe in MA and other gov't programs, and I wouldn't condemn anyone for using a program they're legally entitled to even if I didn't agree with the program itself.
So this post I'm writing is about how we think about MA, not the morality of it.
The scenario is someone who has modest wealth, has the options of suicide, but is choosing to get some medical services. The people providing those services do it for money. Someone has to provide it. It could be me, some other family member, the patient, or a gov't program... really anyone who has the money and wants to do it. You're saying to make sure a gov't program pays, which is reasonable if they'll do it. If they want some of that money back, it's the govt taking her home. But really the gov't lent her free money with an open-ended commitment to provide MA with the only requirement that her estate pay back whatever it can.
Remember, I'm talking about language, not the merits. I was took unemployment benefits while I owned a business that earned $4k-10k/mo in cash distributions to me. I disagreed with the policy, but I don't feel immoral for taking the money. Before I did I called them and wrote them to tell them I had other income.
I don't think there's anything immoral about MA. MA accounts for 50% of the basket of programs called "Welfare", not in the colloquial sense but the official Welfare programs. I believe in Welfare. It just blows my mind how most people who receive it see it as a right and see any of it they must repay as theft of a birthright. The thinking is the other side of the coin from "but how will you pay for these expensive tax cuts?" as if the money belonged to the gov't in the first place. If I earn it, it's MY money. If I ask for MA an SBIR grant or some other handout, I'm asking for someone else's money. Maybe it's money I paid in, but it stopped being mine when they taxed it.
I actually support various Welfare programs for reasons that won't fit here.
BTW, I've shopped nursing homes lately. Prices depend on level of car required, but we went with one that was $72,000 per year. Of ones not out in the countryside, it was cheaper than average. We didn't see any $45k options here, even far from Madison.
You are right that health problems in old age are a bitch no matter how you slice it. My wife and I are building a decent bit of wealth. If we need the service, we'll use nurses or Capitol Lakes on Main St, BUT no amount of services help when you feel lousy and can't get up to use the bathroom.
(a) don't read the bills they are voting for or
(b) pass them with full knowledge and complicity
Traitors or incompetence.
A cynical person might think that this was no coincidence, just as it was no coincidence that the Federal Reserve Act and the Income Tax were both passed in the same year.
Are the citizens of the United States now only chattel for the federal debt?