States can seize assets to recoup costs under prezBOcare

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Jan 24, 2014.

  1. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    71,450
    Likes Received:
    4,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,859
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...es-can-seize-assets-to-recoup-medicaid-costs/

    from the article:

    Though many may not realize it, states are allowed to recover the cost of health care after someone's death by seizing their assets. It applies to Medicaid recipients who are between the ages of 55 and 64. The law has been in place since 1993, when Congress realized states were going broke over rising Medicaid expenses.

    But under ObamaCare, Medicaid eligibility has expanded dramatically along with the promise that the federal government will pick up the cost of the higher tab -- at least for the first few years, after which states will be on the hook for a portion of the increase.

    Millions more are entering the system, perhaps without knowing that their assets could be at risk.
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,129
    Likes Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,474
    Countdown to debunking in 5,4,3,2,1...
  3. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    71,450
    Likes Received:
    4,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,859
    feel free to try shab
  4. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984
    Pulled the trigger too quickly Fred. Nearly all of the national media is now aware of this. Of course the majority will play the story at 2 AM but there will be no debunking. It was written into the 2900 page law.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,908
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,971
    It doesn't exactly require debunking.

    The entire story is: "Remember that law that passed in the early 90s that provides for the potential of recovery from the estate of people on Medicaid? Yeah, who cares that it has been the law since 1993, find a way to blame it on Obama!"
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. G8trGr8t
    Online

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    1,101
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,418
    when Medicaid expanded, it expanded the amount of assets that could be seized and the number of people that will be subject to forfeiture of their estates. is that a fair statement Ben? so even though the original law is old the change in Medicaid eligibility has subjected many more people to the law. 0care is responsible for the expansion of medicaid and therefore exposing those additional assets to forfeiture. Do you disagree with that?
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Boring Boring x 1
  7. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    71,450
    Likes Received:
    4,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,859
    http://news.yahoo.com/6-3-million-e...01--sector.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CckSOBS3CgAfUDQtDMD

    from the article:


    "What many people don't read far enough to learn is that this number also can include people in some states who are eligible under pre-expansion -- the woodwork effect -- and whose Medicaid enrollment was simply renewed," said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

    The 6.3 million people determined eligible for Medicaid or CHIP last fall swamps the 2.2 million people who had purchased private health insurance on the state-based Obamacare marketplaces that launched on October 1. The ACA also raised the income threshold for Medicaid eligibility to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, or $15,856 for a single person.

    A Supreme Court decision in 2012 allowed each U.S. state to decide whether to accept the expansion. So far, 25 states have reached an agreement with the administration to do so. Prior to the ACA, just over 60 million Americans were covered by Medicaid.

    In December alone, 2.3 million individuals were determined eligible to enroll in Medicaid or CHIP, an increase of over 20 percent from November, according to the report from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the lead Obamacare agency. About 1.2 million of these were in the 25 states (and the District of Columbia) already expanding Medicaid, and just over 1 million were in the 25 states that have not.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,153
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,647
    We could have crap falling from the sky's and some here would deny it's happening.
  9. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,908
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,971
    I think that's fair, but it basically takes the argument to "Oh my gosh, can you believe that people who got added to Medicaid are subject to the same rules as people who were already on Medicaid!", which in my opinion is an equally silly argument.


    I'm also not real clear why the idea that the government trying to recoup some of the losses it suffers when it gives a low income person access to government funded healthcare then that person runs up a huge medical bill on the government's tab and dies is a controversial idea here.

    It frankly strikes me as something you all would support since it's not simply "the government takes your stuff for being involved in healthcare." It's more along the lines of "the government paid a huge amount of tax revenues to provide you healthcare ostensibly because you couldn't afford it, if you then die anyways and have certain items of value in your estate that could be used to pay for the medical services rendered the government ought to be able to recoup some of the tax dollars they spent on your healthcare rather than simply handing out the windfall of free medical services paid for by others."
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,238
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,745
    On its face, it doesnt seem like something conservatives should be particularly outraged about, especially if people are drawing Medicaid and have significant assets that perhaps went unreported or would have disqualified them from medicaid. A lot of recent ACA criticism is of the kichen-sink variety.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. cjgator76
    Offline

    cjgator76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    17,266
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +434
    Agreed.

    One of the concepts underlying Medicaid is that the individual should essentially use up his/her assets before receiving benefits. If in fact assets exist after death I don't see a problem with the government seeking reimbursement, provided that everybody knew the ground rules going in. And as you noted, the ground rules have been in place for quite a while now.
  12. gatornana
    Offline

    gatornana Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    23,189
    Likes Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +884
    This topic is a prime example where Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,153
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,647
    He exacerbated the situation with his ACA.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  14. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,908
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,971
    I'd still be interested in hearing how.

    Facts:

    1. The government could already attempt to recoup losses incurred on medical expenses from the estates of certain deceased Medicaid recipients.

    2. The government expanded Medicaid eligibility.

    3. The same rules regarding loss recoupment from the estates of deceased Medicaid recipients applies to those persons who are newly eligible as applied to those who were already in Medicaid.

    What exactly do you suggest would have not "exacerbated the problem"?

    Expanding Medicaid without carrying over the loss recoupment rules? That's absurd, why should the government be able to seek to recover assets of value from the estates of those whose incomes were low enough to qualify for Medicaid without the increased threshold, but not be able to recover from those with higher incomes who are newly eligible - and indeed are probably more likely to have assets which could be used to pay for healthcare? That's completely backwards from making sense.

    Keep them in the commercial market if they bothered to get coverage? The medical providers could already try to recover uncovered expenses from the estate, and an insurer would have a claim against the estate for any unpaid premiums.

    Leave them with no coverage? The medical providers could already seek to recover the full cost from assets in the estate.

    Basically it boils down to, if Medicaid coverage were going to be expanded (which I understand you oppose to start with), it would make no sense to not carry over the government's ability to seek recoupment from the estate. If we don't provide taxpayer funded coverage, private entities were already entitled to seek to recover unpaid costs from the estate. And the argument that "the government should just eat medical losses on the taxpayer's bill, even if a deceased person has assets that could be used to partially cover those losses" frankly is not one that fits with your general political ideology.
  15. OklahomaGator
    Online

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,958
    Likes Received:
    1,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Miami, OK
    Ratings Received:
    +2,354
    If someone is on Medicaid they probably don't have a lot of assets to begin with, and funeral expenses would probably eat whatever they have up but you could have money grubbing relatives who are upset they don't get mom and dad's house after they passed away. (assuming they were on Medicaid).

    Are people informed of this when they sign up? They probably are in the fine print of some form they signed but didn't read.

    Should they government be able to recover expenses that they paid for that the individual is responsible for? Absolutely.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. gatornana
    Offline

    gatornana Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    23,189
    Likes Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +884

    How?
  17. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,153
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,647
    By increasing the rolls in medicaid and medicare.
  18. cjgator76
    Offline

    cjgator76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    17,266
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +434
    Agreed again.
  19. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,238
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,745
    I'm not all that familiar with the law. I can't imagine any old asset would be fair game to recover expenses, especially a primary residence (esp w/ surviving spouse) or random non-liquid property. But perhaps I'm wrong?
  20. cjgator76
    Offline

    cjgator76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    17,266
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +434
    I'm no expert either, but it's a fairly typical federal scheme in that the rules are too complex for the average person to understand, yet easily (and legally) circumvented if you know what you're doing. There is a whole industry devoted to Medicaid asset protection.

    The rules are designed to prevent "impoverishment" of surviving spouses - as I recall the asset liens don't even attach if there is a surviving spouse. Could be wrong on that though.
    • Informative Informative x 1

Share This Page