Fine print: State can seize your assets to pay for care after you’re forced into Medicaid by Obamacare

posted at 9:41 pm on December 16, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

My, this is an unpleasant consequence of Obamacare. I’m not going to call it unintended because in its current form, it potentially earns a bunch of money for states, so I’m pretty sure that’s intentional. What I think is unintentional is anyone noticing this is what they’re up to.

But the Seattle Times noticed:

It wasn’t the moonlight, holiday-season euphoria or family pressure that made Sophia Prins and Gary Balhorn, both 62, suddenly decide to get married.

It was the fine print.

As fine print is wont to do, it had buried itself in a long form — Balhorn’s application for free health insurance through the expanded state Medicaid program. As the paperwork lay on the dining-room table in Port Townsend, Prins began reading.

She was shocked: If you’re 55 or over, Medicaid can come back after you’re dead and bill your estate for ordinary health-care expenses.

The way Prins saw it, that meant health insurance via Medicaid is hardly “free” for Washington residents 55 or older. It’s a loan, one whose payback requirements aren’t 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, Prins said.

So, here’s the deal. There used to be a provision whereby the state could recuperate funds spent on a Medicaid patient post-55 years old from whatever assets he owned. So, a low-income individual in nursing home care after age 55 might pass away and his kids would find out the family home or car of whatever he had to his name had to be bought back from the state if they wanted it. It’s called estate recovery, and sounds pretty shady if it’s not boldly advertised as the terms for Medicaid enrollment, which is most definitely is not.

Before the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, there weren’t that many people in Medicaid who had much in the way of assets for seizing. But now that Medicaid enrollment requirements have been relaxed, more people with assets but low income are joining the program or being forced into it. For instance, a couple in their 50s who, say, retired early after losing jobs in the bad economy may have assets but show a very low income. Under Obamacare, if their income is low enough to qualify for Medicaid, they must enroll in Medicaid unless they want to buy totally unsubsidized coverage in the now-inflated individual market. As teh Times notes, this is no small difference:

People cannot receive a tax credit to subsidize their purchase of a private health plan if their income qualifies them for Medicaid, said Bethany Frey, spokeswoman for the Washington Health Benefit Exchange.

But they could buy a health plan without a tax credit, she added.

For someone age 55 to 64 at the Medicaid-income level — below $15,856 a year — it’s quite a jump from free Medicaid health insurance to an unsubsidized individual plan. Premiums in King County for an age 60 non-tobacco user for the most modest plan run from $451 to $859 per month.

The couple in the Times story was able to marry, combine their incomes, and get out of the Medicaid trap. Others will not be so lucky, and may not even read the fine print:

Prins, an artist, and Balhorn, a retired fisherman-turned-tango instructor, separately qualified for health insurance through Medicaid based on their sole incomes.

But if they were married, they calculated, they could “just squeak by” with enough income to qualify for a subsidized health plan — and avoid any encumbrance on the home they hope to leave to Prins’ two sons.

For no one else in the world is it a-okay to give low-income people a loan that might endanger their family’s assets and not even clearly inform them they’re getting a loan.

This Daily Kos diarist has a nice write-up (I know) on the toll this could take on lower and middle-class people looking for relief and getting what amounts to a surprise predatory loan instead:

We haven’t had lots of people younger than 65 on Medicaid, because in most states simply earning less than the Federal Poverty Level did not qualify one for Medicaid.

And we haven’t had many people with lots of assets on Medicaid, because in most places you have to have less than around $2400 to your name before Medicaid will cover you. You can keep your house and your car, but Medicaid reserves the right to put liens on them and take them when you die.

But now we have the Affordable Care Act, and its expectation that everyone in the lower tier of income will end up in the Medicaid system. To accomplish this, they have dropped the asset test. So now we will have lots of people ages 55-64, who have assets but not a lot of income right now, for whatever reason, on Medicaid.

The kicker of it is, if you make the right amount to qualify for a subsidized health insurance plan, your costs are going to be shared and subsidized by the government. But if you go on Medicaid, you owe the entire amount that Medicaid spends on you from the day you turn 55…

How will this play out? No one knows, as far as I can tell. But it is easy to see how this could become a real problem. If someone is low income and goes on Medicaid, will Medicaid put a lien on their house? If they need to sell their house and move, will they then lose all their equity in paying off the lien? Will people get hit with bills and liens for many thousands of dollars, even if they were healthy and hardly ever went to the doctor?

The fact that this is being treated with seriousness at Kos is an indication of how large a liability it could be for this government program. Washington is scrambling to change the law. No doubt other states will start looking at their implementation of this part of Obamacare. But there will be people caught unaware that their houses effectively belong to the government because the government forced them into Medicaid coverage. You’re welcome!

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Wait… Wait…

Obama is going to rob Grandma before he pushes her over the cliff???

faraway on December 16, 2013 at 10:00 PM

No this is how the deal works. The death panels pushes Grandma over the cliff so the government does not have to pay any more for her health care. Then the government gets to take her house and savings.
They government profits two ways.

It does give a great incentive for the death panels to meet their quotes.

bartbeast on December 17, 2013 at 8:54 AM

There will be more people killed over this stupid law than was killed in Chicago, where this Idiot is from. Mark my words.

tmgrant on December 17, 2013 at 9:02 AM

faraway on December 16, 2013 at 10:00 PM

.
It does give a great incentive for the death panels to meet their quotes.

bartbeast on December 17, 2013 at 8:54 AM

.
Knowing that, should give Americans the motivation for ‘no-holds-barred revolution/civil war.’
But too many of us are ‘trained’ to be lazy, and hope someone else takes care of it.

listens2glenn on December 17, 2013 at 9:06 AM

the people that write laws like this are the same ones screaming about how the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.
Well, here is a prime example of why this is the case. It is government that does it.

astonerii on December 17, 2013 at 9:14 AM

If you like your stuff, you can keep…

Oh, the he11 with it.

psrch on December 17, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Right there with you. Either the Constitution allows the government we have or it has wholly failed to prevent it.

iwasbornwithit on December 16, 2013 at 11:52 PM

It’s not the fault of the Constitution. The Founders were well aware of the limitations of a binding contract:

…But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.

John Adams on October 11, 1798 at 1:32 PM

makattak on December 17, 2013 at 9:30 AM

…But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.

John Adams on October 11, 1798 at 1:32 PM

I just had to quote that again because it is simply staggering in its prescience. Our Founders well understood human nature.

makattak on December 17, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Maybe the state just wants all of us to let nature take it’s course.

Kissmygrits on December 17, 2013 at 9:42 AM

I sure recall the vitriol and abuse the libruls heaped on the many western and conservative governors who refused to force people on medicate under obama care. Those astute governors told you this was coming, but nooooo. You a$$hats called them heartless. Accused them of trying to hurt their people by not taking those federal dollars.

Old Country Boy on December 17, 2013 at 9:51 AM

I guess the librul useful idiots are just finding out how this works: If you are not part of the ruling elite or political ruling class (soon to be known as royalty and nobility, your friendly government will subject you to a death panel, then sieze all your assets when they kill you. That is intuitively obvious to any intelligent creature. Any reasonably intelligent creatures would try to beat them to the punch.

Old Country Boy on December 17, 2013 at 9:55 AM

I just had to quote that again because it is simply staggering in its prescience. Our Founders well understood human nature.

makattak on December 17, 2013 at 9:31 AM

True…Too bad they did not have the prescience not to include the words “commerce” and “general welfare” in the Constitution.

iwasbornwithit on December 17, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Doesn’t Obama’s magical bureau of consumer protection … Protect us from this kind of chicanery?

(Yeah I know…)

Skywise on December 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM

This requirement has been in place a long time. I always thought the reason that o-care was forcing people into Medicaid was for one reason – to attach the insureds’ assets, so that more money could be made off the backs of the insured to keep Medicaid afloat.

I see no way out of this. I very much expect that new laws will be enacted to do away with trusts that protect assets – if the citizens don’t fight it. We are being forced by the government to give up what we own “for the greater good.” That’s a fact. It’s redistribution of wealth – from our hands to the government.

littlekittie on December 17, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Just wonderful, Kathy. What other surprises will come out in the terrible law that will be repealed sooner than later. Oh, BTW, have you packed your things yet?

Amazingoly on December 17, 2013 at 11:17 AM

psrch on December 17, 2013 at 9:27 AM

No, the message from the State is more like…

…It is by the generosity and compassion of the State that one is allowed to keep what one thinks is theirs.

Athos on December 17, 2013 at 11:18 AM

So, now we’ve not only establishled death panels but we’re incenetivizing them. I would expect to see the same results we’ve seen after enacting forfeiture laws.

tommyboy on December 17, 2013 at 11:19 AM

There will be more people killed over this stupid law than was killed in Chicago

Well, sure…..that fact is somewhere in those unread passages of the plan. I mean, people have to die ’cause we who pay into Obamacare can’t afford to keep ‘em alive if they prove to be significant drains on resources, ya know.

hawkeye54 on December 17, 2013 at 11:20 AM

True…Too bad they did not have the prescience not to include the words “commerce” and “general welfare” in the Constitution.

iwasbornwithit on December 17, 2013 at 10:29 AM

It doesn’t matter how they phrased their very clear intentions. If not those words and phrases, the liberals would have twisted some other clear intention to allow them to do what they want.

The “commerce clause” loophole was the result of outright bullying of the supreme court by the detestable FDR. It wasn’t the result of a lack of clarity.

makattak on December 17, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Maybe if your side had any ideas at all about any of it it’d be worth coming to.
(I’d love to hear the ‘no more premiums’ one.)

verbaluce on November 6, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Wait, you mean other than the entire threads you claim you never get answers in?

This is all yours, verbaluce.

What’s currently happening to grocery budgets of families with small children? You did it.

What’s currently happening to middle class education savings? You did it.

What’s currently happening to retirement accounts? You did it.

What’s currently happening to the wealth average Americans struggled to accumulate and hoped to pass on to their grandkids? You did it.

Congratulations. You got exactly what you wanted. I can see why you want someone else to blame.

rogerb on November 6, 2013 at 8:35 PM

rogerb on December 16, 2013 at 9:47 PM

And I’ll quote it again for you, because it’s a peach.

Axeman on December 17, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Dead people can’t say no.

BobMbx on December 17, 2013 at 11:23 AM

*flips nickel onto the table*

They can have it!

*walks away*

BigGator5 on December 17, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Shorter: Moochers upset at looters.

If it weren’t for Medicaid, would these people not have to potentially sell their assets to pay for healthcare?

I don’t have sympathy for anyone who wants to live off of others while simultaneously expecting to be able to transfer assets to their progeny at the end of their life. Essentially their progeny benefit at the expense of taxpayers.

weaselyone on December 17, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Forcing people into Medicaid is all the ‘navigators’ are trained on.

Schadenfreude on December 17, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Some person wrote that into the law. Who was it? Remind them again and again in 2014.

Little Boomer on December 17, 2013 at 11:52 AM

This requirement has been in place a long time. I always thought the reason that o-care was forcing people into Medicaid was for one reason – to attach the insureds’ assets, so that more money could be made off the backs of the insured to keep Medicaid afloat.
I see no way out of this. I very much expect that new laws will be enacted to do away with trusts that protect assets – if the citizens don’t fight it. We are being forced by the government to give up what we own “for the greater good.” That’s a fact. It’s redistribution of wealth – from our hands to the government.
littlekittie on December 17, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Aren’t people on Medicaid being compensated by mooching off the wealth of others?
Why should they be treated differently when the government attempts to offset the costs incurred by taxpayers in supporting the moochers in the first place.

In the instance cited, this caused 2 capable people to avoid going on Medicaid.
It is only different now thanks to Obamacare. They have to have insurance, and now they will receive subsidies until they bridge to Medicare despite the fact that they have assets. The government should implement this same thing for those receiving subsidized insurance.

weaselyone on December 17, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Yes, this payback feature has been in place for a while, I think. And you have to transfer all your assets to kids or whatever no less than 3 years before you claim Medicaid, or they consider that fraud and will attach the assets anyway.

No one who is being forced to sign up for Medicaid at this point has had 3 years to prepare.

But you know what, if you voted for Obama and think the government is your friend, I give up. You get the government you voted for, and get it good and hard.

PattyJ on December 17, 2013 at 12:00 PM

I don’t understand the outrage at the government taking assets to pay off costs of services rendered because of a lack of income.

People are willingly signing up to receive health insurance that they cannot afford. If they cannot afford it, they shouldn’t have anything to pass on to relatives after the amount that they mooched off taxpayers in the first place.

People should be encouraged to be self-sufficient. This encourages anyone who wants to pass along assets to relatives to avoid going on Medicaid.

weaselyone on December 17, 2013 at 12:02 PM

The commentary about the article makes it appear as if Medicaid asset recovery is a new concept.
Rndguy on December 16, 2013 at 11:15 PM

No, it doesn’t.

Does this make it appear like it’s totally new?

Before the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, there weren’t that many people in Medicaid who had much in the way of assets for seizing.

Own your own lack of reading, don’t try to pass it off on MKH.

The problem is that like everything about Abysmalcare there was no care taken in battle-stitching all this stuff together, that was near enough to socialized medicine for the Dems.

Take the “If you like your plan” claim and leave the whole lie issue out of it. It still presents a case where the President had repeatedly made this claim about “his plan” where he seemed pretty unconcerned that it was implemented in a fashion that didn’t allow people to keep their plans. That’s followthrough. That’s committment.

And that’s what’s missing at every juncture of the Affordable Tax Act. There are two words that don’t fit ACA: They’re “Affordable” and “Care”. What we have left is an Act.

Axeman on December 17, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Perhaps you aren’t really poor if you have cash in a bank account and own a home. Since when did Hotair argue for the welfare state?

federale86 on December 17, 2013 at 12:12 PM

I see NOTHING wrong.

The dead people aren’t paying, the HEIRS of the dead people are paying. And they are paying back the taxpayers who advanced money to take care of their relative’s health care.

Why should someone get free medical care from the taxpayers, then have the heirs walk off with valuable property?

Labamigo on December 17, 2013 at 12:17 PM

This is the consequence of having the government take care of your needs. By the way, why should YOU pay for MY Medicaid bills if I have assets to cover the bills? That is what is not fair.

RUReady2RNR on December 17, 2013 at 12:22 PM

I have no problem with the government taking ALL of their assets to pay for their care because the alternative is they take MY assets/income to pay for their care.

As between the person getting the care and me, who should pay for the care?

The solution is either sufficient disclosure or end the requirement that people buy insurance – and refuse care for those who elect to not buy insurance.

Over50 on December 17, 2013 at 12:33 PM

You have to pass it to find out all the wonderful things in it!

rjoco1 on December 17, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Oddly enough, Rush has a caller on who described that he and his wife moved their house over to their children to avoid this very thing from happening. But the caller also said depending on the state it may need to be done anywhere from 3-5 years before the person dies or the state may still go after those assets and slaps liens on them.

nextgen_repub on December 17, 2013 at 12:48 PM

I actually don’t think this is an Obamacare thing. If my mother-in-law had had an estate, Medicaid and Medicare wanted back money for her care at the end of her life.
GWB on December 17, 2013 at 8:52 AM

You’re confusing the two. Only happens with Medicaid. Medicare does not have to be reimbursed because those are part of benefits the person has paid into but Medicaid does have to be reimbursed (public benefits).
In some states, only if you received Medicaid after age 55 you have to repay from your estate after death. If you have a surviving spouse,(the community spouse)that spouse can also retain certain non-countable assets, such as the house, all of the couple’s personal belongings and household goods, and a car. Conceivably, the community spouse could retain assets with significant value, without affecting the other spouse’s eligibility for Medicaid. But when that person dies, the state or the nursing home can place a lien on your estate.
ww.eldercarelawyer.com/articles/medicaid/medicaid-after-death-of-a-spouse.html

avagreen on December 17, 2013 at 1:40 PM

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

Lourdes on December 17, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Perhaps you aren’t really poor if you have cash in a bank account and own a home. Since when did Hotair argue for the welfare state?

federale86 on December 17, 2013 at 12:12 PM

That’s not it, the issue is that Obamacare contains slippery, sneaky language that provides for this (state can assume your assets if you die on Medicaid).

It’s the issue of the thing, the conditions weren’t clearly publicized ahead of “signup” for people.

I agree with you that if someone owns a home, has assets at all, and then is also using Medicaid, that there’s a welfare-recipient situation there that isn’t reasonable to the taxpayers.

From what I remember reading/hearing years ago prior to Obamacare onset was that people who had assets but needed nursing home care would sign-over their assets (houses, cars, savings, etc.) to someone else (children, relatives, etc.) SO THEY COULD THEN DECLARE to be impoverished, in which case they’d be eligible for Medicaid and Medicaid would pay for nursing care (Medicare won’t or would not).

So it was a scheme used by many an ill person to be able to obtain nursing home care or as to ill spouses of healthy persons, who would have to suffer the consequences of losing mutual assets.

It’s not a new problem. The issue, though, is that few people know about it or did know about it prior to getting involved in Obamacare.

I’ve been saying this for a while now: no one should be getting involved with Obamacare and it’s irrational to a great degree to even use the website due to personal information then becoming public and pummeled.

Lourdes on December 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM

I agree with Lourdes. People used to cheat to give their heirs their assets, which in all fairness would never pay for all their care needed anyways, but now people are automatically enrolled in Medicaid through healthcare.gov without knowing the ramifications.

PattyJ on December 17, 2013 at 2:15 PM

From what I remember reading/hearing years ago prior to Obamacare onset was that people who had assets but needed nursing home care would sign-over their assets (houses, cars, savings, etc.) to someone else (children, relatives, etc.) SO THEY COULD THEN DECLARE to be impoverished, in which case they’d be eligible for Medicaid and Medicaid would pay for nursing care (Medicare won’t or would not).

As I remember, it had to have been done prior to the 5-year “look back period” to be valid to prevent fraud from happening.
http://insurance.lawyers.com/medicare-medicaid/Rules-to-Transfer-Assets-for-Medicaid-Look-Back-Periods.html

avagreen on December 17, 2013 at 2:22 PM

I hope those in high dudgeon over people taking legal measures to protect their assets from estate recovery are consistent enough not to take Medicare which has zero asset or income requirements.

iwasbornwithit on December 17, 2013 at 2:26 PM

avagreen on December 17, 2013 at 2:22 PM

It’s a 5 year look back for transfers of assets for less than fair market value (gift). The look-back period begins on the day the application for Medicaid is filed. This does not mean that people won’t be eligible at all if they transferred assets within the look-back period. It actually depends on the amount that was transferred. For instance, if only $20K was transferred, the applicant would be intelligible for 4.5 months but thereafter would be eligible for Medicaid .

The look back period is not applied to all Medicaid programs, only those that pay for vendor care.

iwasbornwithit on December 17, 2013 at 2:35 PM

The trap is people are getting divorced to qualify for subsidies, then the State puts them in Medicaid. What happens in this case if one of them gets sick, runs up large bills and dies? Does the one left behind own the house, or even have a claim on it? They are not married, so is its value considered taxable income? Do they have to take out a mortgage and pay back the government just to stay in it? I can see someone having to pay both the inheritance tax and paying back Medicaid, then having to walk away, not only without the house, but owing the government on top of it. I guess if you don’t think this is a good idea, you are just heartless, and don’t care about the poor uninsured. Obamacare is a libtard clusterfrak! I can’t figure out how a law, knowingly passed under false pretenses, can be Constitutionally legal or enforceable.

Zorro

Zorro Olmer on December 17, 2013 at 2:42 PM

This is nothing new, and it is hardly “shady.”

Many thousands of people can tell you how they’ve had to carefull structure their aging parents’ estates, getting all property out of it early, so they can use Medicaid to pay their nursing homes. You can’t wait until it is needed, because all gifts and transfers for two years before the Medicaid coverage kicks in may be confiscated by the government.

And those who failed to get legal or estate planning advice can tell how estates were levied for the full costs of the Medicaid provided.

Again, not new.

And Medicaid patients aren’t insurance policyholders, they are welfare recipients. They don’t even have a freakin’ copay. Their assets on death should be siezed to repay the taxpayers for their free ride.

There are many sad stories out there about the problems caused by ObamaCare. This is not one of them.

Adjoran on December 17, 2013 at 2:44 PM

No this is new, people who have lived responsibly making sure they have the coverage they will need, and have seen to it that the will not be a burden on either their family or country, are being forced to go on Medicaid, or go uninsured. These people had no intention of doing so. They have had no reason to study the pitfalls of doing so, and are now falling prey to a predatory system run by the government. These are not people trying to play the system. These are people trying to survive the system!

Zorro Olmer on December 17, 2013 at 3:08 PM

iwasbornwithit on December 17, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Correct. In part of my career, I used to work in nursing homes and in home health agencies and had to inform prospective patients and families of the laws.

avagreen on December 17, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Zorro Olmer on December 17, 2013 at 2:42 PM

All that’s been answered above.

avagreen on December 17, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Correct. In part of my career, I used to work in nursing homes and in home health agencies and had to inform prospective patients and families of the laws.
avagreen on December 17, 2013 at 3:33 PM

You sound knowledgable…just wanted to add an addendum as a lot of misinformation being posted by others. Two or three year look-back? I wish!

iwasbornwithit on December 17, 2013 at 3:42 PM

You sound knowledgable…just wanted to add an addendum as a lot of misinformation being posted by others. Two or three year look-back? I wish!

iwasbornwithit
on December 17, 2013 at 3:42 PM

I thought that’s what you were doing. And, yes, full knowledge of this complicated subject is needed…..for the reasons you state.

avagreen on December 17, 2013 at 3:54 PM

And Medicaid patients aren’t insurance policyholders, they are welfare recipients. They don’t even have a freakin’ copay. Their assets on death should be siezed to repay the taxpayers for their free ride.

Yeah, all these old people (many who survived the Great Depression and still managed to raise their children, worked at low-paying jobs prior to WWII and afterwards, raised the next generation….the largest group of people in the history of the U.S.) should just stay in their homes and die. slowly. painfully. alone.

God help you. I’m hoping your family is more supportive of you.

avagreen on December 17, 2013 at 4:02 PM

The fact that this is now forced on people trying to buy insurance from the healthcare web site in Washington is the story. It is being sold or at least represented as insurance, not welfare. And yes the way they(Obamacare)are doing it is shady, as is everything about Obamacare from the way it was passed to the way it is being sold and implemented. I agree that Medicaid payments should be repaid as should welfare payments. But that is not what this thread is about. It is about people ending up on Medicaid against their will, through a shady trick of Obamacare, and the consequence of that on peoples lives.

Zorro Olmer on December 17, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Since this is more about “normal” healthcare as opposed to vendor nursing care, and there has been a lot of talk about look back periods and transferring assets, you might be surprised that there is no penalty period for transfers of assets at all when the applicant is applying for a Medicaid card that would pay for their doctors, hospitals and prescription drugs.

In other words, I could have $1M today and if I transfer it all to my children I will be eligible tomorrow, with no penalty, as long as my remaining countable assets total less than $1K.

iwasbornwithit on December 17, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Democrats found a way to tax the poor to give goodies to the middle class. The Republicans should make a big deal about this, but they’re too stupid.

besser tot als rot on December 17, 2013 at 5:38 PM

I saw this young man a few days ago…….I had been wondering when the Conservative movement would take up progressive ideas and use it against them.

LOLZ.

http://nypost.com/2013/12/13/obamacare-blowin-in-the-wind/

Back in the 1960s, the rallying cry of the counterculture was coined by Timothy Leary: “Turn on, tune in, drop out.”

Today America’s young are also rebelling against the establishment. But this time their target is ObamaCare, and their rallying cry is “Opt Out!”

The battle is being fought across smart phones, social media and Internet sites by organizations such as Generation Opportunity, a self-described “free-thinking, liberty-loving, national organization of young people promoting the best of being American.” Generation Opportunity sponsors OptOut.org, where visitors can watch videos of a Creepy Uncle Sam trying…

avagreen on December 17, 2013 at 6:39 PM

so the DEMS WAR ON THE MIDDLE CLASS CONTINUES.

what other group will get screwed under this law

the rich?
no they wont be on it

the very poor?
they dont have anything to take

who does that leave for the DEMS to FINANCIALLY ROB

the MIDDLE CLASS

DEMS WAR ON THE MIDDLE CLASS CONTINUES.
THEY WANT TO ELIMINATE THE MIDDLE CLASS so as to maximize the number of poor who have to do as the democrats order or get thier benefits cut.

the dems want to destroy anyone who is not dependent on the govt and thus would not vote for bigger govt, bigger spending socialism of the democratic party.

sniffles1999 on December 18, 2013 at 7:29 AM

This “Fine Print” will be in the bill for Single Payer when it is eventually passed. The cost of healthcare won’t just be covered by your new 60% tax rate.

NoPain on December 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM

There will be more people killed over this stupid law than was killed in Chicago, where this Idiot is from. Mark my words.

tmgrant on December 17, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Let’s just work to vote the people responsible for it out of office.

Nomas on December 18, 2013 at 6:39 PM

There used to be a provision whereby the state could recuperate funds

…recuperate? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Paul_in_NJ on December 19, 2013 at 11:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2